Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

Public Corporations (Capital Expenditure)

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary or State for Industry what progress has been made towards establishing a formula which requires public corporations to finance a specific percentage of capital expenditure out of revenue.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): The Government fully intend that overall the nationalised industries should finance a higher proportion of their capital requirements from their own resources. Because of the varying circumstances of individual nationalised industries, it would not be appropriate to establish a set formula for self-financing.

Mr. Arnold: Is it not the case that publication of and, even more important, compliance with such a formula would be in the public interest? Does the Minister not accept that it would serve as a further indication of the Government's resolve to discipline the expenditure activities of public corporations, as part of their contribution towards the battle against inflation?

Mr. Mackenzie: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the discussions on the Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Bill last summer my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary indicated that the Government would be having discussions with the nationalised industries. It would not be appropriate at this stage, particularly in the Department for which I am responsible, to fix these targets.

Discussions will be taking place in due course.

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement regarding the financial position of the British Steel Corporation.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): The British Steel Corporation has announced a loss of £125 million in its half-year to September 1975, with the prospect of a higher loss in the second half-year. This is primarily the result of extremely adverse trading conditions. The Corporation is making every effort to limit its losses through cost savings.

Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that grave statement. Does he agree that the industry is now in a desperate situation, with borrowings this year amounting to no less than £1,500 million and with a prospect, as he has already intimated, of heavy losses this year, of—I am told—up to £200 million? What steps can he take with Sir Monty Finniston to improve the situation in this industry, which faces such a difficult time?

Mr. Varley: It is a grave situation, but I know that the hon. Gentleman realises that the British Steel Corporation faces the worst recession for 40 years. It is having discussions with the trade unions about cost savings. I hope that those discussions are successful. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is not another cause of this loss the low productivity in the British steel industry, compared, for instance, to that in Japan? Is not one way to correct this state of affairs for the BSC to introduce more productive machinery? What is the Minister doing to impress upon the Corporation the wisdom of that course? In particular, what is he doing about the improvement proposed at Llanwern?

Mr. Varley: On the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the Llanwern inquiry has not yet reported to the Government. It would not be appropriate for me to comment until we have received that report. One of the factors, of course, is low productivity in relation


to comparable industries overseas. However, the BSC is pressing ahead with its development plan, which is aimed at improving productivity.

Mr. Tom King: Has the Secretary of State made it clear to the Chairman of the BSC that he will give him his full backing in any measure that he believes necessary to reduce these serious losses—or does the Secretary of State intend to interfere, as his predecessor did?

Mr. Varley: I intend to give the British steel industry the support that is required. It has suffered quite a lot from Government interference—not necessarily by this Government. The hon. Gentleman will know that during 1970 it was prevented from going ahead with its development plan because the then Conservative Government set up what was called the Joint Steering Group, which is a constitutional monstrosity. I am convinced that had the industry been allowed to go ahead then, many of the problems of low productivity could have been overcome much earlier.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the report in today's Guardian that the British Steel Corporation cannot raise the finance to support steel stockholding for 12 months from private enterprises in the City, and that the Corporation will be asking the Government for more money for an exercise that will save jobs? Will he comment on this signal failure of private enterprise to support public ownership, which could easily be described as a "strike of capital"? Will he explain to the House what he proposes to do?

Mr. Varley: I know something about the proposals of the BSC for countercyclical stockpiling. We are anxious that there should be counter-cyclical stock piling for the very reason that my hon. Friend has given, namely, that it would help to preserve jobs.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman compare the results of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, in America, with the results of the BSC, because both corporations are similar in size? The British Steel Corporation has lost about £200 million this year, but the Bethlehem Steel Corporation will again make a high profit in spite of the American recession.

Mr. Varley: I do not know the exact circumstances of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but I know that we are just as anxious as he and the whole House are to ensure that productivity and the financial out-turn of the British Steel Corporation improve.

Planning Agreements

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects his Department to conclude the first planning agreement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): The Department is having informal discussions with leading companies about the possibility of introducing planning agreements into certain key sectors of manufacturing industry. My right hon. Friend hopes to begin formal planning agreement discussion shortly, but at this stage it is not possible to make a precise estimate of the likely date when the first agreement will be concluded.

Mr. Rooker: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is some concern on Government Benches about the delay in concluding the first planning agreement? Will he give an assurance that his Department will at all times "keep its finger out" on this matter? At the same time does he agree with the editor of the Sunday Times Business News of yesterday in condemning as totally irresponsible the antics of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on the aspect of planning agreements?

Mr. Kaufman: Any condemnation of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will draw general consent in this House.
With the Industry Act on the statute book for only a few weeks, and implemented for only a few days, I hope that my hon. Friend will give us a little more time. We are pressing forward with planning agreement discussions because we share the views of all hon. Members on the Government side of the House that through such agreements we can get the kind of sectoral programme that is needed.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the Under-Secretary would like to confirm that the planning agreement procedures


are entirely voluntary and that the speech that I made, as opposed to the account of it which was included in the Sunday Times of yesterday, pointed out to industrialists only what must have been quite apparent if they had carefully read the voluntary statements made by Ministers of the present Government.

Mr. Kaufman:: Of course planning agreements are voluntary. That has been reiterated again and again by Government Ministers in the House.

Paper Products (Scandinavia)

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the results of the negotiations over the level of duty-free imports of paper products from Scandinavia for 1976.

Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade expects to lay an Order before the House by the end of next week giving details of the quota levels for 1976. I can, however, say that there will be no general increases.

Mr. Ovenden: Does my hon. Friend accept that although the news that there will be no general increase is slightly better news than many of us expected, it will still do very little to assist the British paper industry? Is he aware that production is currently running at about one-quarter down on that of last year, that unemployment in the industry is growing, and that short-time working is widespread? In view of the situation in the industry, does he not accept that it is grossly unfair to British paper workers that a quota system should be maintained which allows only for an increase in the amount of paper imports into Great Britain? Will he persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade to seek urgent talks with the Scandinavian countries with a view to devising a quota system which more accurately reflects demand in the home market?

Mr. Kaufman: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend says about the problems of the paper industry. He will have noted what has been said following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in September. I certainly acknowledge,

also, that these are matters that require international discussion. My hon. Friend will know that discussions with the EFTA countries and with the paper industry and other interested parties in the United Kingdom have now taken place, but further discussions will be held, possibly in the spring of next year.

Mr. Sims: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problems of the paper industry are further exacerbated by the problems of dumping in this country? Will he give an undertaking that any representations made to his Department will be looked at carefully?

Mr. Kaufman: We are aware that there appear to be imports into this country from some rather bizarre quarters, and we are certainly ready to look into them.

Mr. Burden: Do not the imports from Scandinavia consist almost entirely of newsprint? One should not get confused between the importations of newsprint, which are necessary, and other paper imports, which are affecting the paper production industry in this country.

Mr. Kaufman: This is certainly a complex question. What we have to try to do is, on the one hand, to give the maximum possible protection to our paper making industry while at the same time, on the other hand, ensuring that the paper using industry has the supplies that it requires.

Shotton Steelworks

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement on the Shotton steelworks.

Mr. Kaufman: As I told the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) on 24th November, an announcement about Shotton steelworks will be made as soon as possible, but the problem deserves—and is receiving—very careful study.

Mr. Morrison: Will the Minister say when "as soon as possible" will be? Is he aware that the continuing uncertainty is having a more than demoralising effect on all those who work at Shotton? Is he also aware that despite these difficulties industrial relations at Shotton have


remained exceptionally good over the period?

Mr. Kaufman: I am certainly aware that an answer is necessary, because the uncertainty is obviously not helpful to morale in the industry. At the same time, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is better for us to consider this matter with the care and in the detail that it deserves, rather than to rush forward a decision that might be liked less than the uncertainty.

Mr. Tinn: When considering any action to assist the Shotton steelworks or any other threatened steelworks, will my hon. Friend rule out any measures that would prejudice the fullest development at Redcar, the third stage of which is essential to the integrated scheme which itself is essential to a modernised steel industry in this country?

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend has made clear, more aptly than I could, the many considerations that need to be taken into account. This is a multi-faceted problem. I assure my hon. Friend that the Redcar aspect is being taken into account, along with the many other aspects.

Sir A. Meyer: In view of the situation disclosed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in his reply to an earlier Question, should not the consideration being given to this matter by the Government extend beyond the question of which plant is to remain and which is to shut, to reconsidering the whole strategy of concentrating on five major producers, one of which has a bad employment record?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman has been putting points such as this in discussing matters which are of great concern to his constituents. The kind of considerations that he asks us to take into account are considerations which would make our decision further off rather than nearer. If he is ready to accept that, we shall accept what he says.

British Leyland

7. Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what sums of public money have so far been advanced to British Leyland.

Mr. Varley: Following the Government's acceptance of the Ryder Report as a basis for policy, £200 million of equity capital has been provided to the company.

Mr. Hurd: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread anxiety among car component manufacturers that Leyland, as part of its new investment programme, will manufacture components such as car heaters, which may put at risk existing manufacturers? Will he give an assurance that he will not allow these very large sums of public money to be used in such a way that they destroy existing firms and efficient suppliers?

Mr. Varley: I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this matter. Representations have been made to us by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and I believe that representatives saw my right hon. Friend, Lord Beswick, a few weeks ago and expressed their concern to him. Since then we have been in touch with the National Enterprise Board and with British Leyland. A balance must be struck between British Leyland's buying in components from manufacturers and using its commercial judgment. Everyone concerned is aware of this. We are also aware of it and are taking it into consideration.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the Secretary of State remember that when it was decided to put substantial sums of money into British Leyland it was also firmly announced by the Government that no further money would be injected unless the results proved satisfactory? Therefore, what instructions has he given to Lord Ryder as to the rate of return he is expecting on the £200 million? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that in terms of both industrial relations and profit forecasts. British Leyland is achieving the return upon which the next tranche of the money must depend?

Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When the Prime Minister made his statement on British Leyland to the House, he said that some improvement would have to be made in productivity and in labour relations. There has been some improvement, but there is a long way to go. We have made that plain to Lord Ryder and to those who


work in the industry. Equally, the unions themselves are co-operating and, I believe, want to co-operate. But if there is not an improvement, we shall certainly stand by the original statement made by the Prime Minister.

Merseyside

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he is currently taking, and what steps he proposes to take, to stimulate industrial investment on Merseyside.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: We shall continue to do everything we can to stimulate industrial investment in the area.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: That is really not enough, and not a satisfactory answer. Is my hon. Friend aware that unemployment on Merseyside is well above that of the national average and that, in particular, in Kirby the male unemployment rate is 25 per cent.? Does he accept that the people on Merseyside did not return a Labour Government in order that they should be put on the dole, and that the area should now be regarded as a crisis area? Will my hon. Friend make an urgent review of the whole of the Merseyside area, with a view to taking specific and relevant measures for the industrial regeneration of that area?

Mr. Mackenzie: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, as I appreciate the concern of all my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the Merseyside area. I believe that the measures that we have introduced—especially the measures that I announced the other day about the advance factory programme—will be of considerable value to Merseyside, in terms both of the advance factory programme itself and of the construction industry, in which, I know, unemployment is of much concern to my hon. Friends who represent the Merseyside area.

Mr. Heffer: Advance factories in themselves, especially if they are left empty for about a year, are no answer to the immediate problem. Is it not clear that Merseyside is an area which requires immediate action of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk)? Will my hon. Friend look again at this problem, especially in terms of the construction industry? No fewer than 13,000 construction industry

workers on Merseyside are unemployed. There are 22,000 people on the housing list in Liverpool alone. Surely this is a time when the Government really must introduce a crash programme to deal with areas like Merseyside.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the latter part of his question should be directed to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. However, we are genuinely concerned about the problems of Merseyside and its high unemployment rate, especially in the construction industry. Like my hon. Friend, I share great hopes for the National Enterprise Board, which I believe can be of considerable value to the people who live on Merseyside. A regional office of the Board will shortly be set up in Liverpool, and I am sure that this will be of great value to the area.

Small Businesses (Exports)

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what encouragement he proposes to give to small privately-owned businesses with export potential as part of his new industrial strategy.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: The new industrial strategy is concerned with the well-being of industry as a whole, and policies for individual sectors which are devised within its framework will take account of the part to be played by firms of all sizes. Smaller enterprises will benefit from this approach as much as large companies.

Mr. Renton: Does the Minister accept that a sizeable sum of capital is needed for a small company to invest in developing new export markets? Against a background of crippling rates of personal taxation, CTT and wealth tax, what incentive exists for the small company to undertake that sort of expenditure now? Will the Minister consider the examples of both Ireland and Australia in terms of the whole question of export incentives?

Mr. Mackenzie: The points that the hon. Gentleman made about taxation are often made in this House. These comments have been noted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and appropriate action has been taken on them from time to time. My concern as a Minister in the Department of Industry is to ensure that


small companies which can benefit from export services can be helped. Indeed, the small firms information centres and the Department of Trade help small companies, where they can, with their export drives.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my hon. Friend have a word with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade about this matter? What small firms engaged in export want is greater help from the ECGD—help that goes to the bigger firms at present but not to the smaller firms, which nevertheless employ many thousands of engineers and others whose jobs are at stake.

Mr. Mackenzie: I shall pass my hon. Friend's comments on to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, because we are conscious of the important rôle that many small firms play in the export drive.

Mr. Warren: Does the Minister accept that although he may be conscious of the problem he is not doing enough about it? The real problem is that many small private businesses are being forced into bankruptcy because of the inaction of his Department and this Government. Why does he not speed up the work of the Requirements Boards to help these people develop their export potential?

Mr. Mackenzie: A great deal of work is done to help small firms by the Requirements Boards, the small firms information centres, the counselling services and other services where we have direct responsibility.

Shipbuilding

Mr. Trotter: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what plans he has to assist the shipbuilding industry to secure future orders and ensure its continued prosperity following his recent discussions with both sides of the industry.

Mr. Varley: My discussions with the industry are still continuing. I am not yet in a position to make an announcement.

Mr. Trotter: Can the Minister explain to the House why, after two years in office, the Government still have no policy at all for the shipbuilding industry, apart from nationalising it? Is he aware that while he is obsessed with nationalisation

the shipbuilding industry is sharing the problems of the rest of the Western European shipyards, and that the longer the tackling of those problems is put off the more difficult it will be for the industry? While the Government fiddle, our shipyards are operating in a vacuum.

Mr. Varley: Many of these issues will be discussed tomorrow, when we debate the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. I hope that we can get down to some detail during that debate, and certainly during the Committee stage, which we hope to start before Christmas. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be a member of that Committee and will have a chance to develop his point there.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome this Government's action and the action of previous Labour Governments concerning the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry, and point out the Conservative Party's complete neglect of those industries. Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend especially bear in mind the importance of keeping in touch with the work force in the area and review the position about orders for new ships being placed abroad?

Mr. Varley: It is part of our discussions and considerations that we should discuss the prospects for British shipbuilders with British ship owners, because some of the problems of lack of orders within our shipyards could be overcome if British ship owners placed more orders here. That is certainly a point that we have in mind and that we shall be developing.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: One of the Minister's complaints about shipbuilding is the lack of investment. Is he aware that private firms in shipbuilding have invested £77 million over the past 10 years? Has he received an assurance of any sort from the Treasury that the cash outlined in the Bill will be available for investment in shipbuilding if, unfortunately, it is nationalised?

Mr. Varley: The cash will be available and in our judgment it will be adequate when the industry is publicly owned. However, the situation is extremely grave. I do not want to underestimate the difficulties. There are formidable problems in the shipbuilding industry. The world energy crisis has meant that there is a shortage of orders


for tankers and the world recession has meant that orders for dry cargo ships are in short supply. We shall need the help of both sides of industry and the understanding and consideration of the House.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend go a little further and tell us what discussions he is having with British ship owners? He is absolutely right when he says that if more British ship owners placed orders in British shipyards we should not be in half the difficulty that we are now.

Mr. Varley: I have not personally entered into discussions with British ship owners, but my officials are in touch with them and, if necessary, I shall get in touch with them direct.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the Secretary of State realises that his promise of a detailed discussion is welcome. This is the first time since February 1974 that this Government have shown any interest whatever in the details of a policy for this industry. Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the new strategy that follows the nationalisation of the industry, the policy of specialising on three warship shipyards will not be changed?

Mr. Varley: I cannot anticipate the strategy which will be developed. The strategy for the industry in the first instance will be laid down by the organising committee in consultation with both sides of industry, but this will be a subject that will come under discussion during the Committee stage of the Bill.

Nationalised Industries (Manpower)

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take action to reduce overmanning in nationalised industries for which he is responsible.

Mr. Varley: Manpower levels are a matter for the boards of the corporations concerned in negotiation with the relevant unions.

Mr. Jessel: Does the Secretary of State agree that overmanning undermines employment prospects in the long run, since if industries are uncompetitive they lose markets and jobs? Have we not seen this happen in the Post Office? Will

the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will not interfere in the freedom of action of chairmen of nationalised industries to do what they think best, in the long run, for the people employed in their industries?

Mr. Varley: If the hon. Gentleman has specific questions to raise about overmanning in a particular area of the Post Office, no doubt he will get in touch with the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation. The one thing that I want to avoid is to be involved in the day-to-day matters of the nationalised industries. It is not a matter for me. I think that that is well understood by the House.

Mr. Hoyle: May we consider overmanning in the top management of nationalised industries and, in particular, those whom we appoint as chairmen? I am thinking of people such as Sir Kenneth Keith, who, last week, in the Channel Islands—a tax haven—when addressing the Institute of Directors, took the opportunity to attack the trade unions and the Government's nationalisation policy. Is it not time we got rid of such people? That is where the overmanning is.

Mr. Varley: I think that Sir Kenneth Keith was appointed not by this Government but by the Conservative Party when in office. Questions of manning levels in the nationalised industries are best left to discussion between the boards of those industries and the unions concerned. If I were to go into detailed consideration of manning levels, the life of the top management of nationalised industries and of the trade unions would be intolerable. I do not believe that the House would welcome such a situation.

Chrysler Limited

Mr. Michael Spicer: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has received any application from Chrysler UK Ltd. for financial assistance.

Mr. Varley: As the hon. Member knows, the financial situation of Chrysler UK Ltd. is a subject of continuing discussion between the Government and the Chrysler Corporation. The feasibility of a number of options is being considered, and a report will be made to the House as soon as it is possible to do so.

Mr. Spicer: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the Government plan to make available £30 million to Chrysler, and will he acknowledge that, if that be so, the making available of such money at this time would be a scandalous misuse of that public money, both in its effects through the public debt on inflation and in its effect on the 20 million taxpayers, some of whom now are earning, after tax, almost less than is necessary for them to live?

Mr. Varley: I can neither confirm nor deny that £30 million—or £35 million—has been made available or suggested to Chrysler. There is a lot of speculation in the newspapers, and most of it is wrong. I can only say that the Government have been faced with an extremely difficult and grave situation, and in due course I shall make a full statement to the House.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Will my right hon. Friend take it that many of us on this side appreciate that, in dealing with Mr. Riccardo, Mr. Cafiero and Mr. Gillespie, he has a very difficult task, and that we sympathise with him in the difficult decision he has to take? Nevertheless, will he recognise that in Coventry and the West Midlands we now have unemployment approaching 10 per cent., and many of my constituents, especially those who work at the Chrysler factory at Ryton, do not know whether they have a job to go to next year? I ask my right hon. Friend to accept the need to make a statement to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, for the sake of confidence among the workers, customers and dealers in Chrysler cars.

Mr. Varley: What my hon. Friend said is very helpful. He understands the seriousness of the situation and he appreciates, I know, that no precise information can be given today. I give him an explicit undertaking that a full statement will be made to the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Heseltine: Although one understands the gravity of the situation in which he is placed, will the Secretary of State, for his part, acknowledge that the time is coming when a statement may be overtaken by events, since dealers are rapidly losing confidence, and if the dealer chain disintegrates no attempt to save Chrysler on a national scale will

have any impact? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the grave urgency of his making at least a holding statement, so that confidence does not totally evaporate in the dealer network?

Mr. Varley: Last week I put out a statement, which I thought would probably help the dealers, following the discussions I had with Mr. Riccardo and the Chrysler company. This is one of the considerations. I believe that there are about 800 exclusive Chrysler dealers in the United Kingdom, and I know that they are just as worried as are those who work in Chrysler factories. I hope to be able to make another statement as soon as possible. I cannot go beyond that now.

Ship Repairing

Mr. Dodsworth: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the cost to public funds of nationalisation of the ship repairing industry.

Mr. Varley: Expenditure on public ownership of the ship repairing industry will not involve a direct call on resources. At this stage it is not possible to give a precise estimate of the amount of the compensation stock to be issued.

Mr. Dodsworth: Is the Secretary of State aware that spread round the shoreline of this country there are over 100 firms involved in ship repairing, employing over 15,000 workers? Does he not agree that any sums of money would be better spent in promoting their interest in international markets rather than in outdated concepts of nationalisation?

Mr. Varley: I do not agree. Our policy for ship repairing has been made absolutely clear. Indeed, there are many shipbuilders, rather than ship repairers, who believe that ship repairing needs strengthening, in particular in our port areas.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Merseyside we had 18,000 ship repair workers in 1947, and that that work force is now reduced to less than 2,000? Is it not clear that the time has come for this industry to be taken over on a national basis? Does my right hon. Friend agree that one important need is to get the port facilities available for ship repair, which requires, if not immediate public ownership—which I believe to be essential—discussions


between port owners and the nationalised ship repairing industry in order to ensure that we have proper facilities for ship repair? Further, does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most important requirements is that the ship repairing industry be modernised, and that there should be discussions with the ship owners employers' federation to ensure that they do not use continental ports when facilities are available in this country?

Mr. Varley: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend says. Discussions along the lines he suggests are taking place.

Mr. Cope: If it is not possible to give a precise estimate of the cost, is it possible to give a rough estimate?

Mr. Varley: It is not possible, because compensation for the ship repairing industry is to be determined by negotiation and, if necessary, by arbitration. At this stage it would be wrong for the Government, having to carry out that commitment, to give the estimates for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

Hosiery, Textiles and Footwear

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will take steps to assist the hosiery, textile and footwear industries in the Leicester area.

Mr. Kaufman: The Government are always ready to consider specific requests for assistance where these are compatible with our policies and our international obligations.

Mr. Janner: Will my hon. Friend take it that there is grave concern in Leicester at the continued decline of our traditional industries—a concern which is aggravated by the announcement of forthcoming redundancies just made by two electronics companies on the New Parks estate? Can my hon. Friend give a positive indication of the way in which the Government intend to help these traditional industries?

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that during this year agreements have been reached or restrictions imposed on major Far Eastern suppliers of knitwear and, for the first time, levels of imports for most of these items are controlled. Moreover,

we announced in May that, following discussions with Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania, these countries would be reducing their exports to the United Kingdom of men's leather footwear during this year. The Department of Trade is considering requests from the footwear industry for surveillance licensing of imports and reductions of imports. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that we are well aware of the concern in his constituency and elsewhere.

Mr. Boscawen: If the hon. Gentleman is ready to consider suggestions, I suggest that he asks the Department of Trade why it has done nothing about dumped imports of cheap shoes coming into this country from Iron Curtain countries during the past 15 or 16 months. Why has the Department done nothing about that dumping? Will he hurry it along and make it do something soon? Irrespective of the industry's present difficulties in other respects, it is the import of cheap shoes manufactured behind the Iron Curtain at less than the cost of production in this country that is causing grave concern.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman could not have paid attention to the answer I gave a moment ago to my hon. and learned Friend. We have reached agreements with Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania about reductions of footwear imports from those countries.

Mr. Madden: The Prime Minister recently said that he hoped to make an announcement about selective import controls in days rather than weeks. Can my hon. Friend confirm that pressure in this matter is being put on the United Kingdom by America, the EEC and others? Will he recognise that if action is not taken soon the textile industries not only in Leicester but in many other parts of the United Kingdom will be in complete disarray, and the position, which is already very bad, will deteriorate yet further? Will this again be a matter of too little, too late?

Mr. Kaufman: Whether it is too little or too late will depend upon my hon. Friend's judgment. What I can confirm is the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that an announcement about the Government's consideration of selective import controls will be made shortly.

Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend, of course, will be aware of our concern. I appreciate that he is saying the usual thing—that before very long we shall be hearing from the Department—but may I remind him that in the meantime people are on short time and more mills are closing? Does he mean that there will be controls on footwear as well as on textiles?

Mr. Kaufman: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that an announcement will be made shortly. I can also confirm that that announcement, whether or not it is satisfactory to my hon. Friend, will to a considerable degree be the result of pressure put on the present Government by my hon. Friends, on behalf of their constituents.

Post Office (Review)

Mr. Goodlad: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will publish the terms of reference of the review of the Post Office.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: My right hon. Friend has already done so. I would refer the hon. Member to his reply of 12th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding).

Mr. Goodlad: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the terms of reference which have been published do not allow any review of the activities of the Post Office outside the scope of the Post Office Act 1969? Will he undertake to publish new terms of reference that allow an objective review of the benefits or otherwise of the continuation of the Post Office monopoly in its present form, and the advantages or otherwise of allowing private enterprise to compete with the Post Office in certain of its activities, stating whether this would be to the public benefit?

Mr. Mackenzie: We have heard that one before. The terms of reference were drawn up in consultation with a number of people, of whom it was the Post Office Users' National Council who made the original recommendation to us.
On the question of the monopoly, I can only give the answer that I have given from this Box on many occasions before—that if one wants to have a wide-ranging national service, this can be provided only by the Post Office, whereas the groups which the hon. Gentleman may have in

mind can provide for only a limited profit-making service.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: While we are on the subject of the Post Office, may I ask my hon. Friend why he will not give a general direction to the Post Office to allow old-age pensioners to send their Christmas cards at about 4p or 5p? Does he realise that it is impossible for old-age pensioners to send their Christmas cards at the present rate?

Mr. Mackenzie: My hon. Friend is anticipating a Question that he has tabled later on the Order Paper. All I can say is that it is not a matter that will be discussed by the review body, though I am sure that the members of that body will note my hon. Friend's interest.

National Enterprise Board

Mr. Stanley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what guidelines he has issued to the NEB; and whether he will publish them.

Mr. Kaufman: As my right hon. Friend said on 22nd October, we shall publish the text of the draft guidelines as soon as we have completed the confidential discussions which are now taking place.

Mr. Stanley: Is not it extraordinary that the guidelines have not been published, although the Government have announced their industrial strategy? Is not it important that these guidelines should be published at the earliest possible date? In the absence of these guidelines, will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the policy of the NEB to buy into profitable sectors of manufacturing industry, and, if so, will the hon. Gentleman say which sectors the NEB has in mind?

Mr. Kaufman: It is the policy of this Government, under the appropriate Act of Parliament, that the NEB may buy into profitable sectors of industrial manufacturing. As for the hon. Gentleman's misgivings about the delay in the publication of the NEB guidelines, we are consulting various bodies, of which the CBI is one. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not saying that he does not wish us to consult the CBI.

Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the resources of the NEB, amounting to £1,000 million over five years, are grotesquely inadequate? Does


he agree that something like five or six times that sum would be more appropriate?

Mr. Kaufman: I agree that it is necessary to make the maximum amount of money available to the NEB to enable it to carry out its essential task.

Mr. Tebbit: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that it is not only the guidelines that are the subject of some mystery, but also the number of people employed by the NEB? When can we expect questions about the number of people employed and other matters affecting the NEB to be answered in this House?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman must not expect me to deal with a point of order which has been raised with Mr. Speaker. I have answered a Question on this matter, and we must now await developments following the point of order that was raised by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) last week.

Mr. Tom King: When will the hon. Gentleman realise that Members on the Opposition side of the House are getting heartily fed up with being asked to pass legislation when we are not aware of any of the ways in which that legislation will operate? As in the aircraft and shipbuilding legislation there is no strategy for those industries, so with the NEB there are no guidelines. Will the hon. Gentleman at least give an undertaking that one of the guidelines will be that the NEB will at all times have regard to the new industrial strategy of the Government?

Mr. Kaufman: Between 1970 and 1974 the hon. Gentleman trotted through the Division Lobby—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I cannot answer anything if I am being held down by yahoos. The hon. Gentleman trotted through the Division Lobby to vote for legislation of maximum imprecision and capable of maximum damage. It ill becomes him to attack the present Government on well-framed and sensible legislation.

Drypool Group (North Humberside)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the Drypool Group in North Humberside.

Mr. Varley: The financial assistance of £325,000 provided by my Department opened up the prospect of completing work on most of the ships on the present order book. After taking full account of the views of the Industrial Development Advisory Board and the receiver, the Government came to the conclusion that the best employment prospects would result from allowing the receiver to negotiate with prospective private purchasers of the component parts.

Mr. Wall: Can the Minister say what he estimates the effect will be on employment levels, particularly in Beverley shipyard? If the Beverley and Selby shipyards are sold off to private enterprise, may we take it that they will not be subject to nationalisation?

Mr. Varley: An undertaking has been given by the receiver that he will try to get private purchasers for this group, which has gone into receivership. I cannot make detailed comments on the prospects for individual yards. I know that the receiver has had discussions with prospective purchasers of the Beverley yard, which I believe is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I am told that it may be difficult to find a purchaser who will continue shipbuilding at Beverley, but the receiver sees a prospect of the use of the site for other industrial purposes.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision has caused great distress on Humberside among the people employed in the yards, particularly those in my constituency, and that it has been regarded as reneging on the original proposals published during the last Session of Parliament? Why is he not prepared to be open about the advice that he has received, so that we can see whether his judgment is well founded? Further, is my right hon. Friend aware that we cannot see that it holds out a great deal for the future of the shipbuilding industry as a nationalised undertaking if he thinks that these yards would be better in private hands?

Mr. Varley: I am prepared to consider this matter further with my hon. Friend, who has shown some concern. The impression has been given that this group is of long standing. In fact, it was not formed until 1973. There are eight units within the group, employing just over 1,000 men. They have lost money on 17


out of the last 18 orders which they obtained. They have not obtained orders for the past two years. It really made no industrial or commercial sense to keep it together, and certainly not to keep it within the Bill.

Staffordshire

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he proposes to take to encourage the diversification of industry in North Staffordshire.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I accept that some diversification would be desirable, and this is a factor that we take into account in administration of the IDC control. But we must continue to give priority in the steering of new industry to areas with the most serious unemployment problems.

Mr. Ashley: Does my hon. Friend accept that while unemployment is an important criterion it should not be regarded as the sole criterion for taking action? Is he aware that in North Staffordshire we have very serious economic problems and, although our unemployment record is not as bad as in some other areas, we are dependent on only two or three industries, and successive Governments have made the mistake of assuming that North Staffordshire's problems are the same as those of the West Midlands? They are not. May I ask my hon. Friend to visit the area and see the problems for himself, and then make his decisions about helping the region?

Mr. Mackenzie: I agree that it is undesirable for an area to be so heavily dependent on one or two industries. My right hon. Friend will be taking an opportunity to visit Staffordshire, and I have visited the area in the last two or three weeks and discussed some of the problems with the people there.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Does the Minister agree that the criteria should include the question not only of short-term unemployment but of the long-term industrial structure? Is he aware that the long-term industrial structure in North Staffordshire needs diversification?

Mr. Mackenzie: We take into account a number of matters when determining whether a region should be given intermediate or development area status. Unemployment

is the main criterion, but dependence on one or two industries would also be taken into account in fixing IDC control policies.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENDANTS' COSTS

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Attorney-General in what circumstances part of the costs incurred by the representatives of defendants in criminal proceedings may be disallowed on the grounds of the manner in which the case has been conducted.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): A taxing officer may properly disallow an item of expenditure claimed by a defendant's legal representative if, in the exercise of his judicial discretion, he considers that it was not reasonable to incur that expenditure. The taxing officer, in exercising his discretion, is expected to have regard to any directions given by the court.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in a recent case Mr. Justice Melford Stevenson reduced the costs allowed to solicitors and counsel by one-third, and that this is widely regarded as being a punishment for their having criticised and attacked police evidence, on the instructions of their clients? Is he further aware that it is not infrequent that such attacks on particular aspects of police evidence are justified, even in cases where the defendants are found guilty? Does he realise that in criminal proceedings legal advisers frequently advise their clients not to press such attacks and that, as a consequence of Mr. Justice Melford Stevenson's decision, it will be much more difficult in future to persuade a client that such advice is impartial?

The Attorney-General: I understand that the solicitors involved have intimated that they will appeal to a taxing master. It follows that, much as I would like to answer my hon. Friend's question, this is a matter which is sub judice.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRIES

Mr. Skinner: asked the Attorney-General what further inquiries undertaken by his Department have not yet been completed.

The Attorney-General: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 9th June.—[Vol. 893, c. 23–4.]

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make a further comment about the long-running Poulson saga? Is he prepared to refute recent comments made by Dr. Kenneth Williams in an interview with a Daily Telegraph correspondent on Monday last week, in which he appears to suggest that Scotland Yard has made no attempt to contact him regarding the hospital building in Malta? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it was somewhat hypocritical of some sections of the Press to attack him for answering an hon. Member's letter in specific terms when many of those same newspapers were very quick to report in full the Abela proceedings in Malta, even to the extent of printing verbatim the contents of letters sent by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) on the matter of the hospital building at that time?

The Attorney-General: In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I had noticed the same aspects of this matter. As far as Dr. Williams is concerned, I answered my hon. Friend's question and that reply was published. My answer was accurate. I cannot speak for Dr. Williams.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PROCEDURES

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied with the prosecution procedures of the Director of Public Prosecutions in cases of murder and other serious crimes.

The Attorney-General: I have no reason to be dissatisfied with the procedures for which I have ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Price: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that despite the lack of reasons for him to feel satisfaction, there will be a general welcome in the House for the fact that the. Fisher inquiry into the Confait case will be able to cover these procedures of the DPP as well as police action in the case? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that when an alibi is put in after a preliminary

period, if the alibi looks strong the DPP should consider the matter very carefully indeed before proceeding, and that that might be one way of saving a great deal of public expenditure on legal aid, which the Government are so keen on doing?

The Attorney-General: I am aware that my hon. Friend has pressed this matter very hard for a long time. We all know the result. I congratulate him. Sir Henry Fisher will be going into the whole of this case, up to the trial, in great detail. It is better that we wait until we see his findings.

Oral Answers to Questions — APPURTENANT RIGHTS (REVIEW)

Mr. Guy Barnett: asked the Attorney-General how soon he expects to receive a report from the Law Commission of its review of rights appurtenant to land.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): Following publication on 5th July 1971 of the Law Commission's Working Paper on Appurtenant Rights (No. 36), it was found necessary to postpone further consideration of this complicated subject owing to the heavy demand on the Commission's programme of law reform. Work on appurtenant rights will be resumed in the near future, but it is too soon to predict when the Commission's recommendations will be submitted.

Mr. Barnett: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is at least one matter in this review which is vitally urgent—the question of the difficulties faced by those who seek to obtain loans on freehold maisonettes and flats because positive covenants do not go from one owner of these properties to another? In view of the fact that this causes delays in the occupation of such properties, certainly in areas where there is already a shortage of accommodation anyway, will my hon. and learned Friend see that the Law Commission takes up this matter, considers it urgently and makes recommendations on the basis of which he and his right hon. and learned Friend can act?

The Solicitor-General: No one underrates the importance of a number of


matters relating to this subject. I will see that my hon. Friend's comments are drawn to the attention of the Law Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORPORATE BODIES (COURT REPRESENTATION)

Mr. Weetch: asked the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied with the existing arrangements for the representation of corporate bodies in English courts.

The Solicitor-General: Yes, Sir. My noble Friend is satisfied with the existing practice, under which county courts and magistrates' courts have a discretion to permit representation in appropriate cases by persons other than practising solicitors or barristers.

Mr. Weetch: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that on October 17th the Chairman-Director of Homes Limited was refused permission, in a peremptory and offhand way, to say a word in defence of his company in Greenwich magistrates' court? Is he also aware that it was indicated that unless a solicitor was appointed—against the wishes of the defendants—the company would not be allowed to conduct its own defence in response to the charge? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that such a decision is quite intolerable, and so are any other decisions like it? May I suggest that it is a matter of basic and natural justice that any corporate body in a court should be able to defend itself, through its own representative if it wishes, and ask my hon. and learned Friend to prevail upon the Lord Chancellor to see that there is some urgent reform in this direction?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will be aware that this case is sub judice, so I am in something of a difficulty. The court took the view that it was a complicated matter of law in which qualified representation was desirable, but I take the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this case has thrown up a nasty piece of restrictive practice, which he ought to take extremely seriously? Is he aware that of all the restrictive practices in this country, those of his own profession are

among the nastiest, and that this is one that needs dealing with?

The Solicitor-General: I am sure that the legal profession is always prepared to consider these matters. In these days of consumer protection, there is something to be said for ensuring that the public has qualified advice where it is required.

Mr. Brittan: Leaving aside that case, will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain whether he thinks there is any justification, in principle, for saying that a company that decides, in a responsible way, that it wishes to represent itself and does not wish to be represented by a lawyer should not be allowed to do so? If he thinks that there is justification for such a rule, will he tell the House what it is?

The Solicitor-General: This is perhaps something that ought to be considered, and it may be more easily considered when this case is no longer sub judice.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to a supplementary question on Question No. 17, the Under-Secretary of State said that he was precluded from answering questions about the staffing of the National Enterprise Board because the matter of a Question which had been blocked by his Department to prevent the House from asking such Questions had been referred to you as a matter of order. Surely nothing has happened in the reference to you on a matter of order on that Question that precludes the Minister, if he is willing to do so, from answering a Question about how many people are employed by the National Enterprise Board.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman will remember also that the Lord President of the Council said that he would consider this matter. I think it is a matter for Ministers to decide what Questions they will answer. This is not a matter for the Chair. I think that we had better leave it for the Minister to consider the matter—the Lord President said that he would do so—and await a statement from him.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Before the right hon. Lady makes her statement, I wish to make a statement relating to Private Notice Questions.
As the House knows, the acceptance of these Questions lies entirely within my discretion. This is not always easy to exercise, and I am finding that it is becoming steadily more difficult when Questions relate to incidents in which lives have been lost.
In the sad world in which we live today, such fatalities are becoming increasingly common, whether by accident or design, and Members are understandably anxious that the House should be made aware of them where their constituents are involved. While I have the utmost sympathy with this anxiety, I do not think it is in the interests of the House that I should allow such Questions on every occasion on which it is sought to ask them, and I have not done so.
It is a convention that Mr. Speaker should not be questioned in the House about his reasons for allowing or disallowing a Private Notice Question, nor should the fact that he has disallowed one be referred to in the House.
But I nevertheless think it appropriate that I should state the guidelines which I try to follow. It is, in general, only to allow Private Notice Questions relating to fatalities, first, if the incident is of disaster proportions; secondly, if the incident appears to represent some totally new development; and, thirdly, if it seems that urgent action of a particular kind might be suggested to prevent other people suffering a similar fate. I try to exercise my discretion along those lines in each case as it arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS (JUNIOR DOCTORS AND CONSULTANTS)

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): With permission, I will make a statement on the situation as regards the medical profession and the National Health Service.
In the debate on 21st November I gave the House details of the junior doctors' dispute. As I told the House, at the

heart of this dispute is the Government's overriding need to sustain the pay policy. The juniors' representatives maintain that they do not wish to breach the policy but that it is being wrongly interpreted in their case. On 20th November the Secretary of State for Employment and I met representatives of the Hospital Junior Staff Committee of the British Medical Association and explained that, as the policy applies to earnings and not just basic rates, their claim for greatly enhanced rates for all hours worked over 80 could not be reconciled with it and that any improvements in the new scheme of pay supplements would have to be contained within the amount of money formerly being paid out in extra duty allowances. I am sorry to say that, despite this, the BMA Council has endorsed this claim by the juniors and officially authorised the industrial action which started last Thursday in support of it.
The juniors are also arguing that the sum of £12 million which is available for redistribution has been wrongly calculated and is an underestimate. Since it is certainly not the Government's desire to deprive the juniors of any money to which they are entitled under the policy, I offered the Hospital Junior Staff Committee an independent audit of the extra duty allowance claim forms on which the figure of £12 million was calculated. This was refused by it on the ground that the underestimate arose from the failure of the Review Body to take certain factors such as underclaiming into account in costing the new contract.
At my request the BMA sent me details of these factors and I forwarded them to the Review Body, which has now commented. The Chairman of the Review Body explains in his letter to me:
I can assure you that the Review Body took account of the kind of factors that Dr. Stevenson refers to in his letter and made due allowance for them within the limits of the evidence available to them.
In the interests of removing possible misunderstanding of the basis on which its recommendations were costed, the Review Body suggests that the Office of Manpower Economics, which serves the Review Body, should discuss this with the BMA's statistical adviser. I am pleased to report that the BMA has accepted this and technical discussions on these points


will take place in the next clay or so. I have placed copies of this correspondence in the Library.
In the meantime, industrial action is continuing. The BMA has recommended juniors to restrict their hours of duty to 40 per week worked flexibly according to local needs. I regret to say that some juniors are restricting their hours to from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. five days a week. This industrial action has led to the closure of a number of accident and emergency units, which will undoubtedly put some patients at risk. In some hospitals facilities have been closed in order to concentrate manpower and maintain a 24-hour service in other hospitals. The picture varies from region to region and is changing from day to day. It is impossible to give a precise picture at this stage, but I am keeping the situation under close review through the Department's monitoring unit.
It is encouraging that as many as four out of 10 junior doctors who answered the question in the ballot about sustaining industrial action voted "No" and that the endorsement of industrial action by the Hospital Junior Staff Committee of the BMA was carried by only 23 votes to 19. It is also encouraging that the principles of the new contract which we have negotiated received overwhelming support in the recent BMA ballot. As I have explained, it is possible under the pay policy to start phasing in the new contract immediately on a basis which will ensure "no detriment".
But our real aim should be to reduce the long hours which some juniors work. The Government have immense sympathy with the juniors over this. I am willing to enter into immediate talks with the juniors, and with the representatives of the consultants who would, of course, also be involved, to agree a timetable for reducing juniors' hours of duty to a maximum of 80 hours a week. This, of course, cannot be introduced without agreement by consultants as well as the juniors, and without a willingness for juniors in posts which do not involve long hours of duty to shoulder some of the burdens of their colleagues who work long hours.
I now turn to the consultants. The Council of the BMA has recommended that from today doctors in the senior grades in NHS hospitals should limit their work to caring for emergencies and to the

care of patients already receiving in-patient treatment. Also, the Council is collecting undated resignations. It says that its grounds for discontinuing this action would be a decision by the Government to refer to the Royal Commission all the matters in our consultative document on private practice, together with the phasing out of pay beds. I hope that the House—the whole House—will deplore this additional industrial action. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, the question of separating private practice from NHS hospitals is a matter for Parliament, where no doubt it will be fully and hotly debated.
As for the licensing proposals in the consultative document, the Queen's Speech makes clear that the Government propose to continue consultations on them before finally deciding their policy. I have already held one discussion with the representatives of the medical profession on the document and I have today written to the BMA inviting it to resume discussions with me.
I am glad that the Royal Colleges, although not in agreement with the Government's proposals on pay beds, have said that they cannot associate themselves with their profession's proposals to limit services to patients, and I am glad, too, that consultants in Scotland, as well as a number in England, have publicly announced their refusal to take part in the industrial action. The action proposed by consultants in England, if fully applied, together with the junior doctors' sanctions will give rise to very serious risks to the health and even the lives of patients.
In the Government's view it is indefensible that any patients should remain at risk while the discussions arranged by the Review Body take place and pending the further talks which the Government have offered to both junior doctors and consultants. I can only hope that, even at this late hour, the profession will reconsider this damaging action and resume talks.
I also have to report that the executive committee of NUPE, at its meeting yesterday, recommended its members not to provide services for private patients, except for emergency cases, in hospitals where the consultants are taking industrial action affecting NHS patients. I can only


deplore any action from any quarter which damages the needs and interests of patients, and I urge all NHS staff to leave this matter to Parliament.

Mr. Norman Fowler: That is a very serious position, and our urgent need must be to reach an agreed solution. On the junior doctors' dispute, is the right hon. Lady aware that, as the Prime Minister acknowledged on Thursday, the Opposition have made their position absolutely clear? We will not support action to break the Government's counter-inflation policy. Therefore, may I put two points to the right hon. Lady which could bring about a solution within that policy?
First, we know that the crucial figure is the £12 million available for distribution. Will the right hon. Lady allow an independent audit to go one step further than currently envisaged and consider the basis of that figure and, in particular, whether £12 million is the amount now being paid in 1975 in extra duty allowance? Will she therefore agree to an independent examination of the view of many junior doctors that that figure is out of date?
Secondly, with that evidence, which can be collected quickly, will the Government now agree to the Prime Minister convening a conference later this week of all the parties involved with the aim of giving the negotiations a new start and breaking down the atmosphere of mistrust which has surrounded them?
As for the consultants' dispute, the right hon. Lady will again recognise that we have made our position clear and that we do not support industrial action. Does she recognise also that the solution really lies in her own hands? Will she not, even now, agree to a reasonable compromise and refer the whole pay beds and separation policy to the Royal Commission, or does she not understand that she has not only led the National Health Service into crisis but risks leading it to catastrophe?

Mrs. Castle: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I think I have made it clear by the offers I have made that the last thing the Government want is to deny the doctors any money to which they are entitled under the pay policy. Therefore, we have proceeded

on the basis of the claim forms sent to us by health authorities for extra duty allowances during the base period on which the calculations have, by agreement, been based.
In one of his recent letters to me Dr. Stevenson, the Secretary of the BMA, said:
We accept that the arithmetic covering the 24-week period from 1st July to 15th December 1974 is correct.
Those were the figures which were, at the time the calculations were made, the only figures available. That is the kind of base period on which everyone else's salary calculations are made. Since then, more recent figures up to the end of March have come into our hands and they confirm the pattern revealed by the previous figures. Therefore, I must repeat that we are perfectly willing to allow an independent audit of the claim forms which were sent in to us.
At one stage, one of the juniors' representatives said to me "You are the only one who has seen the claim forms." I said "If that is the suspicion, let us clear it up. Let us have an independent audit to check that the claim forms sent to us by the health authorities were correct." From the latest figures available, the pattern is shown to be the same as that during the 24-week period to which I have referred, and at no time in all the discussions about the costing of the contract has any objection been made by the juniors or the BMA to taking this base period, which, as I say, was the only period available at the time.
The purpose of the pay policy is to see that the amount available does not exceed the figure which was available last year. That is the basis of the counter inflation policy. Any other approach is self-defeating.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second question that the Prime Minister should convene a conference, that, of course, is a matter for my right hon. Friend. But he has received a request from Sir Rodney Smith, the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, asking for a meeting, and he has agreed. My right hon. Friend is currently abroad, but I understand that the meeting will take place on Wednesday.
Dealing finally with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about referring the pay beds issue to the Royal Commission, I


put this to the House. Not many years ago this House set up a Select Committee to examine private practice in the National Health Service. That Select Committee was divided, of course, and there is every reason to assume that a fully representative Royal Commission would be divided too. In the end it will be for this House to decide what is, after all, a profound matter of principle—whether it should be possible within a publicly-financed National Health Service to buy privileged treatment. As The Guardian put it in a leading article not many weeks ago,
This is a political matter which ought to be decided by Parliament.

Mr. Cyril Smith: We are grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement, in the course of which she said a great deal about the cause of the present situation. Can she also say something about the effect? Is she aware, for example, that in my area health authority the junior doctors have been working from 9 till 5 five days a week for the past four and a half weeks and that we have had to close all the Rochdale area hospitals to all admissions, including emergencies? Will she consider the grouping of hospitals across area health authority boundaries to ensure some kind of long-term coverage of emergency treatment as from, perhaps, the end of this week?
Secondly, does the right hon. Lady agree that all that the doctors are now doing is displaying the militancy which has proved to pay off in all other sections of the community in past years?

Mrs. Castle: I appreciate the position in Rochdale because the hon. Gentleman's constituency is in a militant area, as I am in my constituency, where I have met a number of junior doctors. I well appreciate the difficulties in Rochdale, and the kind of provision that the hon. Gentleman suggests is exactly the kind of cover that we desire to make. We intend to attempt to make it, but it depends on the co-operation and agreement of the doctors themselves. If they are prepared to work 40 hours flexibly in the light of the local situation, as the BMA recommended to them, such arrangements may be possible. However, some juniors are refusing to do even that.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Government supporters believe that she has been open and conciliatory towards the junior doctors? The offer of an independent audit of the claim was put to them earlier than today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that doctors, juniors and consultants, are prepared ruthlessly to put the health of patients at risk is despicable, and that it is time we stood up to those people who will put their self-interest first? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the miners?"] If a patient suffers damage to health as a result of being refused admission to hospital, against whom is redress available? Is it the junior doctor, the consultant or the health board?

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising that throughout the time I have held my present responsibilities I have sought to advance the juniors' cause. I had extremely friendly relationships with them until the past few weeks, as any reading of the joint statement which the juniors' representatives and I issued in January this year will show. We then reached a warm agreement on the principles of the new contract and the date for its introduction—1st October this year. That being so, it is obvious that anyone in my position who wished to defend the pay policy could have done nothing other than I have tried to do.
The matters raised by my hon. Friend in the second part of his question are legal matters which are far too abstruse for me to enter into.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: In regard to the juniors, if the figure of £12 million is arithmetically correct does it not show how small the extra duty allowance is in relation to the excessively long hours? What proposals does the right hon. Lady have to implement her policy of reducing and eventually eliminating excessive hours, as to do so obviously requires making the profession attractive to new entrants, which it will not be unless something more constructive is done?

Mrs. Castle: The fixing of the rates for juniors, as for others, is a matter for their independent Review Body. It was not until April this year that the Review Body was free to fix increases for the juniors which it felt were fair. Under


our predecessors' statutory policy the Review Body had not been free to do so. In April the doctors received a record increase of 30 per cent. and more, which gave them individual increases of from £13 a week to £30 a week. That is a fact that we should never forget, and it is why it is impossible, if the pay policy is to survive and not collapse in ruins in a matter of weeks, for the Government to exceed the amount which was being paid in extra duty allowances during the current year.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will my right hon. Friend note that there is wide support, certainly on the Government side of the House, for the view that the principles of our policy on pay beds and private medicine are not subject to negotiation with the BMA or anyone else but are subject only to the consent of Parliament? Does she also agree that during the past 12 months the National Health Service has had a better financial deal in real terms than ever before? Against that background, will she give a firm assurance that there will be no giving way to the kind of politically motivated blackmail to which we are being subjected?

Mrs. Castle: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend that the principle as to whether or not pay beds should be contained in our National Health Service is a matter which should be decided by the House. That is why I have proposed to put it in the form of legislation to the House. The authorisation of pay beds is within my administrative discretion. If I had wished to play unfairly by the medical profession, I could have so whittled down those authorisations de facto as to abolish pay beds without giving the House an opportunity to vote on the matter. What I propose is, therefore, the most democratic course.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is very dangerous when industrial action of the kind now being taken by the consultants is taken to prevent a political decision. My hon. Friend is also right when he says that from the pay point of view the National Health Service has had the best deal in the past 12 months that it has had for years. That is why the Government introduced over £700 million-worth of Supplementary Estimates last year to meet the increased pay that we

gave to those from the top to the bottom of the Service.

Mr. Crouch: May I bring the right hon. Lady back to the real problem, which is not a question of the doctors and herself but a question of the patients? In the past 10 minutes we have wandered away from consideration of the great risks being run as a result of the impasse that has been reached. As a member of the South-East Thames Hospital Authority I received a report half an hour ago that King's College, Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospitals in London are now at grave risk and that at the end of the week the risk will be severe. Other hospitals in the region—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I am asking a question. I will not be prevented from completing a question involving people's lives. The Secretary of State is not complaining about the way in which I am putting the question.
I deplore industrial action by both junior doctors and consultants. We have reached a state of impasse. It is the Secretary of State's duty to lead us out of that impasse now. I hope that she will recognise the mood of the House and the country and give us a lead.

Mrs. Castle: I believe that the mood of the House and of the country is that it would be wrong for the Government to approve a breach of the pay policy, because in the end the pay policy would collapse, inflation would resume its appalling upward course and the first people to suffer would be the patients in the National Health Service that we should no longer be able to sustain. I am deeply concerned about the well-being of patients. That is why I am monitoring the situation daily through my Department's unit and why we shall make whatever arrangements we can to safeguard the interests of patients, which their doctors are so wantonly flouting.

Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. Friend accept that part of the trouble with the junior doctors is that many of them genuinely do not understand the pay policy? For example, they believe that overtime payments pro rata can be taken by ancillary workers and they therefore think that overtime is negotiable for themselves. Will my right hon. Friend take every possible step to ensure that


the two associations do what every responsible trade union has done, and make clear to their members what the pay policy is all about?

Mrs. Castle: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great deal of genuine confusion among juniors. Many of them genuinely believe that they can have almost a doubling of their earnings from overtime—that is what they are asking for in their latest demand—and still be within the pay policy. This is where the House as a whole can help.
I explained in some detail in our debate on 21st November how the pay policy applied to juniors. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I spent four hours with their representatives, going over every detail and query and pointing out that we were not asking of juniors anything that we were not asking of other workers. My hon. Friend is right to say that the juniors believe that overtime rates are somehow outside the policy, whereas it is earnings and not basic rates to which the £6 limit applies. It is only extra work, not additional overtime rates, which is authorisable.

Mrs. Knight: I hope that the right hon. Lady will not fall into the trap of believing that the consultants who are not joining in industrial action may agree with her views and her actions. The position is that they do not. Secondly, was it not settled that the provision for consultants to treat their own private patients within the National Health Service was a condition of their joining the NHS in 1947? In the interests of sick people, will the right hon. Lady cease her intention of breaking Aneurin Bevan's promise?

Mrs. Castle: First, I accept that the consultants who are refusing to take industrial action are not thereby necessarily accepting the policy that I have put before the House—and all the more honour to them for putting their patients first and allowing their battles to be fought on the Floor of the House when the legislation comes before us. That is the true medical ethic as I understand it.
I can assure the hon. Lady that she is wrong in her reference to Aneurin Bevan. There was no understanding of the kind to which she has referred. Aneurin Bevan made it clear in "In

Place of Fear" that he considered that the retaining of pay beds had been a fault in the Service which had been there from the start. He was in favour of abolishing pay beds in due course.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the past two General Elections the nation gave a mandate to the Labour Government to abolish private practice in the NHS hospitals? Is she aware that a junior doctors' representative at St. Helens approached me only a few days ago about having to work 156 hours in one week? Will she make it clear to the country whether junior doctors are actually working 156 hours or whether they are on call for those hours? What is the maximum number of hours that doctors actually work in a hospital?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend is right to say that the intention to phase out pay beds from within the National Health Service hospitals was contained in both our election manifestos. As any honourable Government would, we are trying to implement our manifesto policy.
My hon. Friend is right in querying whether all juniors work the kind of extravagant hours that we sometimes hear quoted. The Review Body carried out a special survey on juniors' hours and found that on average whole-time juniors were on duty for 85·6 hours a week, of which 43·2 hours were spent on normal duty and 42·4 hours on standby or on call.
When we talk about juniors' hours we are not always talking about hours of work as commonly understood but about hours on duty, some of which may be spent at home where they can be entertaining or studying. I still maintain that the average is excessive. That is why I believe that our first duty is to work out a plan of action for reducing the excessive hours in the Health Service.

Mr. Grylls: Does the right hon. Lady accept that it would not be fair to blame her for all the troubles in the National Health Service? Equally, she must accept that it must be more than coincidence that there is now almost civil war in the hospital service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has said, what action does she intend to take? Is she aware that it is no good giving glib answers? Does she


recognise the important point that the availability of first-class consultants in 70 per cent. of the country outside the large city areas depends on the consultants having pay beds available at those hospitals?

Mr. Tomlinson: Rubbish.

Mr. Grylls: That is the reason for the consultants forgoing 25 per cent. of their salary so as to be able to do a small amount of private practice. Will the right hon. Lady recognise that point as being crucial?

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful for the gesture of courtesy which the hon. Gentleman has extended to me. It makes a refreshing change. He said that it is no good giving glib answers and that action should be taken, but I would point out to him that the action I am taking in standing by the Government's pay policy has been endorsed by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on these matters. Indeed, we have heard that again from the hon. Gentleman. He says that he deplores industrial action to defeat the pay policy. Presumably he condones my refusal to breach the pay policy.
Let us be clear that if the House is to run away from difficult decisions every time we reach this sort of situation, we shall not have a pay policy or a counter-inflation policy. I would point out that in our debate on 21st November the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield condemned the consultants' action against our pay bed policy. He said:
We shall fight that policy in Parliament with every legitimate weapon at our disposal."—[Official Report, 21st November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 362.]
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that.
It would seem that there is no disagreement on principle. Of course, there is disagreement about policy on pay beds and about the way in which the situation should be handled. I think it would help the conciliation of these disputes if that message could go out loud and clear from the House.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The right hon. Lady must be aware that her pleas on pay policy would carry far more weight if the country did not remember her

previous attitude on these matters. I stand by exactly what I have said both on the pay policy and on the consultants' action, but does the right hon. Lady recognise that neither the pay policy nor anything else excludes her from sensible, reasonable acts of conciliation and compromise? It is such action that we press upon the right hon. Lady.

Mrs. Castle: I should find that intervention easier to follow if any detailed suggestions had been made for any further acts of conciliation or compromise by myself. I think the House accepts that I cannot compromise on the money for the juniors unless and until our joint examination with them or the examination by them and the Office of Manpower Economics of the Review Body's calculations produces a basis which is legitimate. If it does, I shall welcome it. If it does not, I should be letting the country down if I were to invent a calculation which would patently be at odds with the pay policy.
All that we have had this afternoon in the form of suggestions from the hon. Gentleman is that we should allow an audit of the earlier figures. In other words, he seems to want to alter the base rate. I can assure him—and I shall send him copies of the March figures, which are the latest available—that that would make no difference.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We have already had over half an hour on this subject, and I cannot allow it to continue very much longer.

Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is a fact, as some junior hospital doctors allege, that some doctors will earn less money as a result of the latest Government proposal?

Mrs. Castle: No, because it depends on how the new contract is introduced. It is true that, if the contract had been introduced in its entirety on 1st October, within the same amount of money, as it must be, that is being spent on those working only over 80 hours a week, some doctors would have been worse off. However, we appreciate that the principle of "no detriment" is a very good trade union principle, and we suggested a way out whereby we could phase in the new contract in such a way that no one


would go on to it until he changed his job. That would have meant that in April of next year the option would have been available, with the help of the additional money becoming available to the juniors under the pay policy, for everybody to switch and for money to be available with a "no detriment" safeguard. We got over that part of the problem, but the argument has now changed completely and is now on an entirely different basis which challenges the foundation of the pay policy.

Mr. David Price: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many of us who deplore industrial action in the Health Service do so not in the interests of the pay policy but in the interests of the patient, and that that is the case whether the industrial action is taken by doctors, COHSE, NUPE or anyone else? May I ask the right hon. Lady, in considering the long-term solution to these problems, to recognise that there is an urgent need for a total job evaluation exercise on all hospital jobs and not only doctors or nurses or cooks? A hospital is a team. Having done that, the right hon. Lady can reasonably ask all the unions and workers involved to reach a voluntary agreement never to strike in the National Health Service.

Mrs. Castle: I agree with the hon. Member that it is the interests of the patients that we must put first. This is why the House must unitedly condemn this industrial action which threatens lives as well as everything else. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about job evaluation, in a sense the independent Review Body is conducting a continual job evaluation exercise in that it has to look at the relative gains and losses of different groups that come under its control. I am not clear what the hon. Gentleman has in mind about anything wider and more comprehensive. If he would like to write to me and put specific details, I should be glad to consider them.

Several Hon. Members: rose–

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.11 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House will know that over the years Parliament has been called upon from time to time to consider a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill concerned with agriculture. I cannot claim that this Bill ranks in importance with some of its predecessors. Despite the length of its Long Title it is a short Bill, but it covers a wide and interesting range of measures all of which are important if we are to keep up with a changing world.
As the title implies, there is no single theme, but it may help the House if I explain that the Bill relates to certain statutory organisations, takes account of some consequences of EEC membership and contains a variety of other items, including provisions relating to animals and their health and welfare.
Clause 1 provides for the winding-up of the Sugar Board and the transfer of its assets and liabilities to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a day to be appointed by Order. This step is necessary because the Board will soon have no further tasks to perform.
The Sugar Board was established by the Sugar Act of 1956. Its prime task was to discharge the Government's obligations under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The Board bought raw cane sugar from the Commonwealth producers at a price negotiated by the Government. It also had an important function within the United Kingdom. This was to average out the price of beet and cane sugar on the domestic market by a system of variable surcharges or distribution payments.
Finally, the Board supported the guaranteed price for sugar beet set at every Annual Farm Price Review by making payments as necessary to the British Sugar Corporation. The Board's operations under these headings were self-financing take one year with another.


However, when we joined the EEC in 1973 sugar became subject to the common agricultural policy and the Board's functions ended one by one. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement ended in 1974 to be replaced by an agreement with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries within the framework of the Lomé Convention.
The Board has reduced its staff to about 15 people who are administering various schemes on behalf of my Department. These include the payments to sugar refiners in connection with the price which the Government guaranteed the ACP producers for sugar shipped in 1975 and the associated price equalisation scheme for cane and beet sugar. However, these tasks should be completed by the middle of 1976 and we can see nothing which should replace them. The dissolution of the Board will therefore be timely and should lead to administrative savings of about £200,000 a year.
The main asset of the Board which will be transferred to my stewardship will be its shareholding in the British Sugar Corporation of 2½ million £1 shares. The Board should have no significant liabili ties when dissolved but I will take over responsibility for the pensions of its staff which are paid from a trust fund.
I should like to take this opportunity to express the Government's appreciation of the work of the Board's members and staff over the 19 years it has been operating. They have done a good job and given excellent service.
Clause 2 of the Bill concerns the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Limited and increases the limits on Government advances to the Corporation's guarantee fund. The Corporation has, since it was set up in 1928, been the major source of long-term loans for the agriculture industry. It is important that there should be no doubt about the Corporation's capacity to continue offering this very important service to farmers.
The Government advances provide the necessary support to enable the Corporation to continue raising, on the market, the money which it lends on a long-term basis to farmers on the security of their land, so that they can buy or improve their farms. The clause provides for an increase in the limit on Government

advances from the current £17 million to £30 million and also empowers the Minister of Agriculture, by Order made with the approval of this House, to raise the limit by up to a further £10 million making an upper limit of £40 million in all. Altogether, the advances provided for in Clause 2 should enable the Corporation to raise about £300 million for lending to farmers.
Clause 3 proposes some alterations to the statutory obligations of the Meat and Livestock Commission to consult with the producing and distributing sectors of the meat and livestock industry. When we were discussing the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy Order in April, it became apparent that the Commission and the industries were dissatisfied with the present consultation arrangements. I therefore asked officials to examine these views with the Commission and to report to Ministers.
The review showed that there was scope for improving the arrangements for consultations with producers and with distributors. The new arrangements proposed in Clause 3 would place a statutory obligation on the Commission to consult directly with the relevant organisation whenever a matter arose which had a substantial effect on the interest of that organisation. This arrangement will replace the existing provision for consultation with the statutory production and distribution committees. The organisations to be included in the new arrangements will be designated by the agriculture Ministers. No alteration is proposed in the arrangements for consulting the consumers' interest, which will continue to be represented by the consumers' committee.
The new arrangements proposed should serve to strengthen and improve communications between the Commission and the meat and livestock industries and enable the Commission to respond more readily to their needs.
Clause 4 provides for payments towards the costs of maintaining a national system of proficiency tests for agriculture in England and Wales. Proficiency tests are the criteria by which agricultural workers may qualify as craftsmen for a premium, currently 10 per cent. above the statutory minimum agricultural wage. They are also useful in that they provide


a form of qualification which can be awarded following courses arranged by the Agricultural Training Board.
The National Proficiency Tests Council, which devises the tests, has found it impossible to survive without a modest measure of Government support. In view of the way the Council ties in with the Agricultural Wages Board and the Agricultural Training Board, the Government have decided that the support which has been given for the last three years should be put on a regular statutory basis. The amount involved is about £25,000 a year.
Clause 5 provides for the introduction of measures to restrict the growing of male hops, with the aim of facilitating the production of seedless hops. Hops can be either seeded or seedless, seedless hops being produced by unpollinated plants. The United Kingdom is almost alone among hop-growing countries in not growing seedless hops, although there is an increased demand for them by British brewers.
Moreover the international hops market, both within the Community and in third countries, is effectively restricted by commercial preference to seedless hops. In order to supply the brewers and to maintain—it is hoped, expand—the export market, it is accordingly important that some English hops should be grown seedless.
Seedlessness can be maintained at an acceptable level only by eliminating male hops within a radius of up to three miles from the seedless hop garden, thus protecting the hop plants from potential pollination. This affects not only the male hop plants previously cultivated for pollination purposes but also wild and other hops that may be found on any private or public land in the areas.
Clause 5 provides for an area to be designated seedless by means of an Order, after consultation with representatives of commercial growers in the area. Provision is made for powers of entry and inspection within a designated area to identify male hop plants and, if necessary, to serve a notice requiring their destruction or treatment. As a last resort, Ministry officials may themselves be authorised to destroy or treat the offending plants.
This may sound a small matter. But it is not unimportant, and I am confident that the powers granted by Clause 5 will be welcomed by growers' organisations, which have, indeed, advocated these measures.
Clause 6 slightly widens the power to collect agricultural statistics under the Agriculture Act 1947, in order to meet the needs of the Government and the European Community. It brings in land which is being used for forestry and land which is not being used at all but which could be used for agriculture or forestry. In each case the land must be associated with an existing agricultural unit in the same occupation.
The Government, in common with all administrations since 1965, are committed in principle to support the plans of individual industries to change to metric systems of measurement. We propose, under Clause 7, to take powers to enable us to replace non-metric by metric units in agriculture and fisheries legislation.
In the agriculture sector, all the industries concerned have jointly decided to make the change during the farming year 1975–76. Amendment of individual enactments will follow consultations with the interests concerned on timing and appropriate units. On fisheries, the proposed power will enable batches of amendments to be made to local subordinate legislation where existing procedures are disproportionately lengthy and costly in relation to the minimal nature of the adjustments required. Power is also needed for amending general legislation.
Clause 8 provides new enabling powers to regulate the exportation of animals for the purpose of more effectively safeguarding their welfare. Under it, Orders may be made to prohibit the exportation of animals without a prescribed licence and/or certificate. Persons proposing to export animals may be required to furnish information relevant to the animals' welfare at and after exportation, in particular the intended ultimate destination of the animals and the arrangements for conveying them to that destination.
Existing welfare controls on exports are operated by the Department of Trade and the Agriculture Departments under a combination of statutory powers and administrative arrangements. As many


hon. Members know, exports of pedigree breeding animals are allowed to all destinations, but exports of store animals and animals for slaughter are permitted only to the EEC and other countries with acceptable standards of animal welfare. This control is operated by a system of export licences operated by the Department of Trade acting on the advice of the Agriculture Departments.
The statutory powers at present available to Agriculture Ministers relate to the safeguarding of the welfare of animals before and at the point of export and during transit to the port or airport to which they are being consigned. However, there is at present no legal obligation on an exporter to give more than the minimum information about his intentions. In practice, veterinary inspectors of the Agriculture Departments ask for detailed information about the travel arrangements up to the exact ultimate destination of the animals being exported—that is, the farm or abattoir—so as to ensure that they will not be subjected to unacceptable stress in transit.
The new powers in Clause 8 to require information, and to institute discretionary licensing and certification will effectively supplement existing powers contained in the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. They will provide a firm legal basis for the controls aimed at protecting the welfare of animals, not only before export but during the journey to, and on arrival at, their ultimate destination abroad. I am sure that this proposal will be welcomed in all parts of the House as yet another indication of the concern for the welfare of animals exported from our shores.
I now turn to Clauses 9 and 10. These clauses reflect the fact that wildlife can be a source of disease to farm livestock and poultry, and indirectly to man. Parliament has already granted powers in the Rabies Act 1974 to enable me to deal with outbreaks of rabies in wild mammals. At present we enjoy a large measure of freedom from bovine tuberculosis, which, I remind the House, was within the memories of many of us—and certaintly of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas), who is a trained veterinary surgeon—endemic in our cattle and was an important source of tuberculosis in our population, in particular in children. That freedom is

now being threatened by the existence of the disease in the badger population in certain limited areas in South-West England.
Although the immediate problem of legalising the use of cyanide gas where tuberculous badgers have to be destroyed was overcome last year by the amendment to the Badgers Act made under the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act, the Government's powers to deal with this situation are still inadequate. Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill are designed to give Ministers the full range of powers we need to deal with problems like that of the tuberculous badger. They have been drafted in a form which would enable their application to any disease to which the diseases of animals legislation applies and which had become established in a wild species of mammal or bird and was infecting farm animals or poultry.

Mr. Keith Stainton: With respect, I regret that the Minister passed so quickly over rabies. I am deeply concerned at the absence of any publicity about rabies at the seaports on the Suffolk coastline. This is a matter of deep and immediate concern.

Mr. Peart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am glad that he has raised this issue. I shall certainly bear it in mind. Inevitably, publicity will come from his intervention. I shall follow up this matter and see that something is done. I mentioned the Rabies Act. I agree that we must be strict and that we must inform the public.
All of us hope that the problem of the badger and tuberculosis will prove to be unique, but it is very desirable that general powers of this kind should be readily available so that any developing situation can be dealt with promptly in the interests both of agriculture and of the wild species concerned.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: I welcome the clause because it reconciles the concern felt by lovers of wildlife with the needs of farming and animal health. I am disappointed that the Minister has missed a chance here, although there may be a chink of light in Clause 10(1)(c). Would it be possible to bring in the voluntary pest and vermin control societies? The deficiency in the Bill is that there is no comfort for them. They are operating at no cost to the


Government in controlling pests and vermin. The Minister said that he hoped that the badger situation was unique. There is a voluntary system in operation, with the occupiers of land attending to these matters themselves, but there is in the Bill only the slight possibility of their being enlisted. There can be no finer way than self-help—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. Is the hon. Gentleman bringing his brief intervention to a close?

Mr. Peart: I welcome the experience of the hon. Gentleman, who has veterinary qualifications. I shall look at his suggestion carefully. I know that it is not in the Bill, but where there can be consultations between voluntary organisations and my own officers and veterinary officers I shall expect them to consult. Whether it should be made mandatory in the Bill is something we can discuss in Committee. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to serve on the Standing Committee which considers the Bill, but that is a matter for the Opposition. I note what he has said, however.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I apologise for being absent when the Minister discussed Clause 8 but I had an urgent telephone call. I am concerned because there is no mandatory obligation on the Ministry to control the export of animals, although it may introduce certain rules and regulations. I hope that in Committee the Minister will consider introducing such a mandatory obligation.

Mr. Peart: I thought that this matter might arise. Inevitably it will be debated in Committee, and I hope that I shall not cause embarrassment to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and the hon. Member for Monmouth by suggesting that they should serve on the Standing Committee. It is, of course, a matter for the Committee of Selection. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gillingham, who takes a deep interest in animal welfare, welcomes what I have done. At least we have moved forward.
Clause 9 enables Ministers to make an Order specifying an area within which a disease exists in wildlife and is infecting farm animals and poultry. Inside such an area the destruction of the wild species concerned would be authorised, and certain

ancillary powers would become available.
There are many safeguards in Clause 9. They include the fact that the disease must be being transmitted to farm animals or poultry in the area, and the destruction of the wild species named in the Order must be necessary to eliminate or substantially reduce the incidence of the disease in livestock.
There is provision requiring the Ministers concerned to consult the Nature Conservancy Council before making an Order, and I am prepared to consider consulting other bodies as well. I was once a member of the Nature Conservancy Council, which is an important body and has wide experience. It is right that it should be consulted.
The Order must be quite specific in naming the wild species and the disease concerned, and the method of destruction if this would in normal circumstances be unlawful. The Order must also name the area of land where the powers arising under it are to apply. Occupiers of land on which the wild species is to be destroyed must be informed beforehand, and there is a general duty on the Minister to carry out the work as safely as possible.
Clause 10 supplements Clause 9 by providing necessary powers of entry for authorised officers. These powers are available under the clause in order to carry out necessary investigations where the existence of disease in a wild species is suspected, in order to destroy members of the wild species in an area once an order has been made, and to monitor the situation once the work of destruction has been completed so that any renewed outbreak of the disease can be quickly dealt with.
I appreciate that the powers which I am requesting under these two clauses are fairly drastic, and their subject may even be distasteful to some people. However, I am convinced that they are necessary if we are to maintain the high standard of freedom from disease in our farm livestock population which we have attained at very high cost.
Clauses 11 and 12 introduce important changes in the agricultural holdings legislation. They will give increased security of tenure for the tenants of agricultural holdings. Complaints have been received


from time to time of the harassment of tenants by agricultural landlords. Parliament took action in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963, in response to earlier complaints, but those provisions did not go far enough.
The recent complaints, which came mainly from South-East Wales although there have been isolated cases in England as well, had a striking similarity to the earlier cases. It was alleged that some agricultural landlords were serving their tenants with notices to do work of repair, maintenance or replacement which were unreasonably long or required unnecessarily expensive work. As a result the tenants, it was said, were forced to spend an undue proportion of their time and money in carrying out the work demanded of them. The significance of the "notice to do work" procedure is that failure to complete the work in the time specified could lead eventually to the tenant having to quit the holding.
My Department consulted the NFU, the County Landowners' Association and interested professional organisations about the complaints. It became clear from the consultations that the "notice to do work" and "notice to quit" provisions were weighted too heavily against the tenants in two respects. First, arbitrators, before whom the tenants could challenge the items of work to be done and the time specified, were not allowed sufficient professional discretion. They could not delete or amend items which, though technically the tenant's responsibility, were unnecessary or unjustified in the interests of good husbandry or sound estate management.
Clause 11 therefore enables the Lord Chancellor by order to empower an arbitrator to delete any such items from a notice to do work, or to substitute a different method of work or materials for those specified in the notice.
Secondly, despite the seriousness of the penalty for non-compliance with a notice to do work, the tenant cannot contest the subsequent notice to quit before the Agricultural Land Tribunal.

Mr. Thomas Tomey: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this much-needed reform for tenant farmers, but why did he not see fit to extend the same protection for the working

son of a tenant farmer in cases where the father dies or retires without having given his son some protection in carrying on the tenancy? Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to this aspect in Committee?

Mr. Peart: I am glad my hon. Friend thanks me for what I have done. The Bill does not cover what he requests. He may well wish to say in this debate that I should have done what he suggests, and I hope that he succeeds in catching the eye of the Chair. What I propose in the Bill for tenant farmers covers harassment and not what my hon. Friend suggests should be done.
Clause 12 enables a tenant served with a notice to quit for failing to comply with a notice to do work to serve a counter-notice on his landlord. The counter-notice will render the notice to quit inoperative unless the Agricultural Land Tribunal consents to its operation. If the landlord wishes to persist with the notice to quit, therefore, he will have to apply to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. The tribunal must consent to the operation of the notice to quit unless in all the circumstances it appears to it that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession. The fair and reasonable landlord test is, of course, one of the most important safeguards for tenants against unfair landlords under the agricultural holdings legislation.
I would emphasise that harassment is not a widespread problem in England and Wales—far from it. But no one would condone harassment, and even one case of a tenant being forced or frightened out of his tenancy is one case too many.
Clauses 13 and 14 contain similar provisions relating to Scotland. As in England and Wales, there has overall been a good relationship between the agricultural landlord and his tenants in Scotland and harassment of the type I have described has not in general been a problem. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has nevertheless thought it reasonable to provide for tenants in Scotland equivalent protection to that being given in England and Wales.
Clauses 13 and 14 give effect to this. The provisions differ somewhat in detail from those in the clauses relating to England and Wales because of some differences in the existing law, but the


effect of Clause 13 will be to extend the powers of arbiters in Scotland, in any harassment cases which may arise, generally in the same way. Similarly the effect of Clause 14 is to make notice to quit, which may be given in connection with a failure to do works, contestable before the Scottish Land Court.
Clause 15 stems from a recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee. The Agricultural Departments need the power that it confers if they are to be able to enforce recovery of the whole of any capital grant which has been falsely claimed. Any recovery action would be subject to the appeal procedure already contained in Section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is a short Bill and one that contains a wide variety of provisions. Nevertheless I am sure the House will agree with me that it is an important and worthwhile measure. It gives me great pleasure to commend the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to the House.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: We are grateful to the Minister for having spent a fair amount of time explaining the provisions of the Bill.
At the beginning of my remarks I must declare an interest, which is already known to the House, namely, that I farm and have an interest in the ownership of land, all of which I farm.
I was surprised to read the details of the Bill when it was first published. I heard of it a little time before it was published and I expected to see within it matters of great importance following up the White Paper which the Government produced seven months ago entitled "Food From Our Own Resources". That White Paper set targets for our food-producing industry which, although not adventurous by any standards, suggested a growth in food production from our own resources of about 3 per cent. a year between now and 1980. I think the Minister will agree that the performance of the food-producing industry has been a failure so far in those terms, because the September figures produced by the Ministry of Agriculture show that the size of the dairy herd was 5·8 per cent. down on the year, the beef breeding herd was 3·5

per cent. down and the pig herd was 7·1 per cent. down.

Mr. Peart: I hope the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the Bill, which has been approved by the National Farmers' Union. It is a useful measure. If the hon. Gentleman wants to argue about the broad policy on agriculture, it may well be that he will be able to do so on some future occasion, but not during a debate on a Bill such as this. If the hon. Gentleman wants to vote against the Bill, let him say so.

Mr. Jopling: I hope that the Minister will not make my speech for me. I have been on my feet for only two minutes. The right hon. Gentleman has produced an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the first he has produced since his Government came to power. He has told us that it is an important Bill, and, therefore, it is perfectly in order for me to spend a few mintues at the beginning of my remarks looking at the whole context of the food-producing industry and what the Bill contains.

Mr. Peart: Mr. Gloom!

Mr. Jopling: It is no good the Minister saying "Mr. Gloom" to me. He might explain the figures and why it happens that this year production of food from our farms, which is what the Bill is all about, will be down by 7 per cent. If I am Mr. Gloom, will the Minister explain why the recent Country Landowners' Association report shows that 60 per cent. of planned investment in the industry has been abandoned or postponed.
A 7 per cent. reduction in food production this year rather than a 3 per cent. rise means that food production at the end of the year will be 10 per cent. down on the target set out in the Government's White Paper. That means that for the remainder of the time between now and 1980 the Government will have to think in terms of increases in food production of over 5 per cent. per annum rather than 3 per cent. as laid down in the White Paper.
When the Bill was mooted, many hon. Members listened to the Queen's Speech hoping to hear that the Bill would contain provisions explaining how the Government's target would be implemented. We fully expected that the legislation


would be relevant to the task which the Government had set, but there was no mention whatever of the Bill in the Queen's Speech. The only mention of agricultural legislation in the Queen's Speech was the proposal to abolish tied cottages, which in my view will depress food production even more, and the only reference to the Bill was the reference at the end of the Queen's Speech that:
Other measures will be laid before you".
Therefore, we are bound to say that the Government themselves cannot attach too much importance to this Bill if it was not even mentioned in the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Peart: The Bill contains some important measures, including those to do with the safety of livestock and exports. Indeed, the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation provisions are important for the industry. Although I do not mind the hon. Gentleman making party political points now and then, I hope he will discuss the Bill objectively. Let him get on with it instead of being cheap.

Mr. Jopling: I know that the right hon. Gentleman went to the Smithfield Show this morning, but I have only—

Mr. Peart: It is a jolly good show.

Mr. Jopling: I have been on my feet for only five minutes. The Minister has now interrupted me twice. I hope he will allow me to get on to the matters which he has raised.
In the general context of the home food-producing industry, the Bill only tinkers about with matters which are on the periphery of important decisions that should be taken. It makes no attempt to deal with declining home food production, which, apart from the seasonal autumn surge in milk production, shows little sign of recovery. I understand that at the Smithfield Show this morning the Minister said that confidence had returned to the industry. I hope he is right. However, I cannot help feeling that the recent increase in milk production was more to do with the weather than with him.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman never said that when the weather was with him.

Mr. Jopling: I do not know what is getting into the Minister today. I have never known him so restless. I am sorry if I have caught him on the raw.
Important items are covered in the Bill. It affects many organisations and many functions of the Ministry. It is the sort of Bill which will give rise to the necessity for long and vital matters to be discussed in Committee. I should like to point out to the Minister—I am sure he already knows—that the constitution of the Standing Committee is a matter not for me but for the Committee of Selection of the House. However, so far as a great Second Reading debate is concerned, the Bill is a poor thing and is more concerned with bureaucracy than with altering trends of production or the prosperity of the countryside.
The Minister said that there are three clauses at the beginning of the Bill which deal with outside organisations. First, Clause 1 contains the proposal to wind up the Sugar Board. We do not argue with that proposal. We understand that the Board has become outdated with the lapse of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the application of the common agricultural policy of the Community to this country. Since 1956 the Board has acted to equalise the supply and the price of sugar when they have been subject to fluctuations. The problem now arises—I hope that we shall hear something of this in the Parliamentary Secretary's reply—of how that work will be continued to equalise both supply and prices. It will be very vividly in the memory of the Minister that tremendous fluctuations in supply and prices occurred during the years 1974 and 1975. I hope that we shall be told to what extent the Board's work in trying to even out those fluctuations will be perpetuated in the future.
I turn to Clause 2, and the Government's proposals to strengthen the work of the Agriculutral Mortgage Corporation. We welcome these steps. We believe that the Corporation has played an important part in the development of the agriculture industry over the years. It is surprising to realise that 9 per cent. of our agricultural land today is subject to loans and mortgages on it provided by the Corporation. One might have thought that with the difficulties of land ownership over the course of the last year or two, when land prices have dropped


dramatically and interest rates have risen dramatically, there could well be a number of farmers who had bought land in the recent past at high prices and who now find themselves in immense difficulties because of the fallen price of that land and the fact that interest must be repaid at extremely high rates.
I observe in the Corporation's accounts that last year £18,000 was written off for bad debts, but that £328,000 was set aside for future debts. The Corporation assures me that the worst is probably over, but I hope that the Government will constantly keep in touch with the situation, which could be one of continuing difficulty if land prices continue to fall.
Many farmers today find themselves short of capital. Many more will find themselves short of capital as a result of the implementation of the capital transfer tax, the wealth tax and the development land tax. Although it is the present Government who have landed the industry with this future liability to heavy taxation, I hope that they will be prepared to try to help the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation to tide farmers over difficult periods when there is a heavy tax liability to pay.
The Corporation has evolved a co-ownership plan whereby undivided shares in farms could be made available for outside capital, with an agreement that the farmer could buy back that interest after either 10 years or every five-year period after that. This is an interesting way of finding relatively cheap money to tide farmers over serious difficulties. I gather that the Corporation is anxious to proceed with this scheme. It would be helpful if the Government gave us some view of their attitude to these proposals.
I turn to Clause 3 and the proposals for the Meat and Livestock Commission. Again, we do not object to the winding up of the production and distribution committees. We understand that they were not entirely satisfactory consultative bodies. Indeed, I have been told by bodies outside the consultative committees—the National Farmers' Union, for instance—that the present level of consultation is not meaningful. Although I do not wish to enter into an argument whether or not it is meaningful, I hope

very much that what is proposed now will improve the consultation that takes place.
I have to ask, however, why the Government are not also proposing to wind up the consumer committee. One has heard suggestions that the Government take the view that there are not adequate groups of consumers to consult. The House ought to be told why the consumer committee alone is to be left. None of us on the Opposition side of the House has any desire to harm the position of consumers in these matters, but it is rather surprising, if it is true, that the Ministry says that there are no adequate groups of consumers to consult. I was interested in the Minister's Press handout on 20th November, which reads,
Representatives of the National Consumer Council, the Consumers' Association, the National Federation of Consumer Groups, the Housewife's Trust, the Co-operative Women's Guild, the Co-operative Women's Guild (Scottish Central Council) and officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, met today to discuss food and agricultural production and support policy in connection with the Annual Review of the agricultural industry.
If the Ministry itself believes that there are adequate groups of consumers to consult on these matters, I do not quite understand why those same groups of consumers should not be considered adequate in relation to the Meat and Livestock Commission. An answer on that matter would be helpful.
I turn now to the three clauses concerned with animal health. First, on Clause 8 we are in support of the Government's measures to strengthen the welfare arrangements for animals that are exported. Many of us on the Opposition side of the House feel that the export trade should continue, although there are some individuals who do not share that view. We were dismayed at the unfortunate set-back in welfare arrangements which came to light in March this year. We all welcomed the step that the Minister took to avoid a repetition of that situation. If these proposals strengthen the welfare Regulations, we warmly welcome them and we hope very much that they will allay the fears of many people who are concerned about this export trade.
I turn to Clauses 9 and 10, which deal with the spread of disease by wild species of animals. We have heard and read


statements made by the Minister's Department about the threat of the spread of tuberculosis by badgers. I was glad to hear, this afternoon, that the Minister has said that he is prepared to amend—I imagine—the Bill to extend consultation to the Nature Conservancy Council. It seems to me that in the future, with programmes such as the brucellosis scheme to eradicate other diseases, it could come to light that other types of animals could spread these diseases. One might, for instance, find that there was a danger of disease being spread by deer. Given circumstances of that sort, I should have thought that it would be a good thing if the Minister undertook, in the Bill, to consult the deer societies, for instance, on these matters.
However, I am not quite so pleased to read the provisions of Clause 10. The Minister anticipated some of my views when he spoke of the great power given to him under the clause in respect to entry for his officials upon land where there is fear that diseases are being spread or where an eradication programme is being carried out. I do not believe that we could agree to Clause 10 as it stands. I think it is fair to say that subsection (2) provides carte blanche for the Minister's minions to wander through the land, shooting anything in sight or digging holes wherever they want, if they suspect—and only suspect—that a disease exists in various species of wild animals. I am sure that provision for a good deal more notice and consultation should be built into Clause 10. As it stands I find it most unacceptable.
I turn to the other clauses of the Bill that deal with the Minister's powers. These clauses are primarily concerned with the growth of bureaucracy, and Conservatives are natually concerned when they see a growth in the Government's power to interfere unless that power is absolutely necessary.
Clause 5 deals with the control of hop growing. On the face of it, this seems to be a worthy project, which we support. As the Minister said, it would allow this country to grow seedless hops to fulfil possible export orders, and certainly this is in the interests of English hop growers. However, to create zones—as the Minister said he would have to do—in which there were no male hops being grown, needs a

large degree of ministerial muscle. I hope that these very strong powers will be used sympathetically. I hope that the only areas which are designated are those in respect of which there is a good deal of consent by hop growers before the programme begins.

Mr. Peart: Certainly.

Mr. Jopling: I welcome the Minister's statement.
Above all, we must try to avoid resentment by growers within designated areas. This would be especially difficult if the international market for hops continued to be as depressed as it is now, because it would mean that growers who were disgruntled would see no immediate advantage in these proposals.
I turn to the proposed ministerial powers over metrication, contained in Clause 7. These provisions give the Minister power to use metric units. I gather—very few farmers are aware of this—that the February Farm Price Review next year will be in metric terms. As I understand it, farmers are totally unprepared to be told in about two months' time that milk prices will be expressed per litre and that livestock prices will be expressed by kilogramme. They are not at all prepared and, so far, not at all educated about how to translate those prices into prices that they are used to.
I hope that the publication of the February Farm Price Review is not awaiting the provisions of this Bill, because before these metric units can be used we must get the Bill through this House, it must go to another place; then, under the provisions of this clause, there has to be consultation with interested bodies and, finally, an Order has to be laid before the House. I give the Minister warning that I see no chance of his being able to complete that process before the February price review. I hope very much that that review can be produced without waiting for the provisions of the Bill.
I am concerned about metrication and about the lack of an overall Government plan for this process. I am opposed to the piecemeal approach to metrication. So far we have had very little detail of the Government's overall strategy and overall timetable. I give the Minister notice that unless a firm statement is made by the Government as a whole


before we discuss this clause in Committee, the position will be much more difficult for us. We must see the move to metrication in farming within the whole national context, and we must have details of the timetable for these matters as soon as possible.
Clauses 11 to 14 are concerned with the change in the law on agricultural holdings. These provisions have been included because of cases of alleged harassment. So far, I am sorry to say that we have not had enough details about what the Government mean when they talk about these cases. The Minister told us that he had consulted both the NFU and the CLA, but I was interested to see what both those organisations put in the briefs which they so kindly sent us. The NFU said that
there appears to be no evidence that this is a widespread and frequently encountered problem.
The CLA said:
No evidence has been produced to the CLA.
Let me make it clear that we would not oppose measures to protect tenants from unfair harassment over minor matters, but, first, we must have more evidence of this. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give us some details of this when he concludes the debate. I hope that in Committee we shall have much more evidence on this matter. Parliament must always be wary about changing the law concerning legally binding agreements between two parties. This proposal implies new powers being put into the hands of one man—an arbitrator—to change tenancy agreements. On the strength of the Bill it is difficult to see how he could decide that provisions which appeared in tenancy agreements were "unnecessary and unjustified". We could not condone new legislation which turned out to be a bad tenants' charter. I am not suggesting that the provisions of these clauses do constitute a bad tenants' charter, but we want to know just what is implied by them in a good deal more detail. We shall need to have very careful discussions in Committee before we can realise the full scale of this problem.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: The hon. Gentleman has said that he has not seen any evidence of the

need for these clauses. Putting that on one side, will he tell us whether he supports the inclusion of these clauses in the Bill?

Mr. Jopling: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening. I did not say that I had not seen evidence; I said that the CLA and the NFU said that they had not seen evidence. I shall come to the Opposition's attitude in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so.
In reply to one of his hon. Friends the Minister said a word about suggestions for making tenancies pass from father to son. Of course, we are sympathetic to the position in which sons find themselves. However, we must remember that at this moment almost one-third of new farm lettings go to near relations. Let farms are now virtually the only way in which young men can get into farming for the first time. For young men wanting to start farming the task is becoming increasingly difficult. As the cost of tenants' capital, machinery, fertilisers and working capital in general rise higher and higher it becomes increasingly impossible if they also have to find money to buy the land. Therefore, it is important that we should be careful to keep the path open to young farmers through let farms.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that, certainly in Wales, the farming population is declining, that we are seriously concerned about this, and that a limited right, on the part of a son, to follow the deceased tenant, as in Scotland, would be widely welcomed in the farming circles in Wales?

Mr. Jopling: I am aware that those views are held, but my concern lies in the danger of drying up the supply of let farms for young men. I was interested to see that in its brief the National Farmers' Union said:
The Union is naturally most anxious that any change in the law on this subject should not detrimentally affect the supply of farms to let".
In my view, it will be difficult for us to evolve a way of making it significantly easier for sons to inherit tenancies without at the same time drying up the supply of let farms. But that is a matter which we can, and, I hope, shall, discuss on another occasion. It might be a question


for a Select Committee at some future stage.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that only a small percentage of farms which now come to hand are in fact let, and on many a farm where there is a son or near relative at home, that son or near relative does not have any opportunity to tender for the farm. Surely, the proposals in the Bill offer a means of ensuring that not fewer but more farms are let.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. and learned Gentleman may use that argument, but I wonder whether he has seen the survey recently issued by the Country Landowners' Association, which covered 844 cases in which tenancies had ended. Analysis of the figures showed that in 55 per cent. of such cases ending with the death of the tenant, a near relative either inherited or did not want the tenancy, or was non-existent. I am not sure, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument holds much water.
I have been interrupted a good deal, and I end now on this note: clearly, the Bill needs much scrutiny and discussion. However, I cannot advise my hon. Friends to vote against it. But let that not make the Minister feel that our agreement to a Second Reading means that we accept the present situation in agriculture. We remain gravely alarmed at the declining volume of production here. The Bill will do nothing to fill our granaries and stores. It will not guarantee future food supplies to the consumer. Meanwhile, the Minister's White Paper remains a hollow drum, to be thumped when the Labour Party is lost for words and for deeds.

5.12 p.m.

Miss Joan Maynard: The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has attacked this Labour Government and, for that matter, all Labour Governments for their policy towards agriculture. I must tell him at the outset that any such attack is ludicrous. The truth is that both this and previous Labour Governments have had an outstanding record in their policy for agriculture.
When the hon. Gentleman says that he does not want to see too much Government interference, I reply, as someone who has had a long association with the industry, by recalling the days when there was no Government interference, when there was poverty in the industry, and when the people who headed the bankruptcy lists were farmers. It took a major world war to bring prosperity back to our industry, followed by Government interference through the 1947 Act. The hon. Gentleman should therefore be less critical of Government interference.
I welcome the Bill, and I shall direct attention to several of its clauses. Unfortunately, I did not hear all that my right hon. Friend said about the winding up of the Sugar Board, but I take it that it is a direct result of our entry into the European Community and the end of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.

Mr. Peart: Yes.

Miss Maynard: I can only hope that the result will not be too detrimental for our former suppliers.
It is proposed to make more money available to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. To some extent, the Corporation is in the same position as that of a local authority that takes on the task of helping buyers of elderly properties that a building society considers too big a risk, and it does get landed with some doubtful starters. In other words, I imagine that those who go to the Corporation are those who have been turned down by the Big Five.
The proposed provision will be valuable, but I understand that the current lending rate is 14¾ per cent., so that one may doubt that the Corporation can provide the assistance which farmers on less good land may need if they are to have to carry heavy overheads of that kind.
I wonder whether it would be possible to establish some sort of land bank—I mean a money bank, not a bank of land—to which farmers would lend in times of surplus, on a reasonable rate of return and perhaps with some tax relief to give encouragement and make it worth while. The same backing as is given now could be given by Government advances, and the Government could probably help also in administration. The Agricultural


Mortgage Corporation could remain for long-term finance, but such a land bank would be there more for the medium term.
I turn next to the proposals for the Meat and Livestock Commission. The Minister will recall that the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers used to nominate producer representatives to that body. Their duties will now be taken away, and the Commission will be required to consult the interests concerned direct. I cannot see there being any consultation with the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, and I remind my right hon. Friend that when he is consulting producers he ought to think about the workers as well as the farmers.

Mr. Peart: Yes.

Miss Maynard: The consumer will be protected by the statutory consumer committees. I presume that that means the Ministry of Agriculture's consumer committees, on which, so far as I am aware, we have no representation as a union.
I welcome the enabling powers to make grants towards the cost of maintaining a standardised system of proficiency tests. Before coming to the House I was a member of a proficiency test committee, and I regard it as sensible that we should have a standard set throughout the country rather than have different standards in different counties. The work is done by proficiency test committees, and the cost of maintaining these committees is borne by the organisations in the industry which have representatives serving on them. In my view, grants should be made available so that proficiency test committees could meet travelling expenses and loss of wages for those who give their time and effort to the industry in this way.
I turn next to Clause 8 and the provisions relating to the export of livestock. I welcome the extra welfare provisions, because I have never been happy about the export of live animals. It is extremely difficult to ensure that there is no cruelty in the loading and transport of live animals, and I welcome anything that can be done to prevent or alleviate suffering.
I give a particular welcome to Clauses 11 to 14, for the protection of tenant

farmers. These clauses are intended to protect those who do the job in the industry. The hon. Member for Westmorland did not seem much in favour of these clauses, and he said that he had no evidence of harassment. I certainly have such evidence. I took the trouble to go to meet the farmers in Monmouthshire who were suffering harassment. Unreasonable demands for repairs and improvements were being made by landlords, and the farmers had to carry out the works within a limited time. In fact, they were being set an impossible task, and if they could not do that task within the time laid down, they were given notice to quit. Therefore, I welcome these clauses.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I am following with interest what the hon. Lady says. Did the tenants to whom she spoke serve counter-notices under the existing legislation?

Miss Maynard: I cannot say whether they did or did not. My understanding was that it was very difficult for them to serve counter-notices. Without question, these farmers were being harassed by the owners, and unreasonable demands were being made on them in order to get them off the farms, so that the land could be sold more profitably in other directions.
As I say, I welcome the new protection and greater security which this Bill will give to tenant farmers, in the same way as I welcome the proposals in the Queen's Speech to give more security to farm workers by the abolition of the tied cottage system.

Mr. Stainton: I am interested in the question of harassment. I am sure that the essence of this complaint lies not so much in the serving of counter-notices as in the restrictive terms of reference of arbitration.

Miss Maynard: I think that is so, but, whatever the technicalities of the situation, I am convinced that these provisions will help the people in Monmouthshire and elsewhere who have been harassed by landowners who are trying to get them off their farms. It seems to me that what we ought to do is protect the people who actually do the job—the tenant farmers and farm workers.
I give a general welcome to the Bill


because I believe that its provisions as a whole are helpful to the industry.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I should like to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) in one respect. She referred to the state of agriculture before the war and the involvement of Government since then. I always thought that agriculture was a very good example of the way in which Government normally should intervene in an industry. The people who know how to do the job are allowed to run the industry. The farmers still farm the land, but the Government intervene in various ways. The Milk Marketing Board is a very good example of this. Minimum standards, in various ways, are set by legislation, and I should have thought that the partnership between Government and agriculture generally, whatever specific criticisms we may have, has been a very good thing.
Until tonight, I had always thought that the Conservative Party was in favour of this sort of partnership. I understand that the Conservatives supported the 1947 and 1948 Acts. Certainly when they came to power they did not try to repeal those Acts. This matter must be kept in its correct perspective. It is impossible to run an industry which is as important as agriculture and with its historical background, without Government involvement.
This is a miscellaneous provisions Bill and, therefore, this is not the time to indulge in broad criticism of Government agricultural policy. This is not the first Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in which the Minister or I have participated. The criticisms of such a Bill can be summed up very simply, in the statement that it is never sufficiently miscellaneous and it never provides enough. This is a common criticism of any miscellaneous provisions Bill. All it does is give to the Government an opportunity to tidy up existing legislation and close obvious loopholes.
I am glad to see that the Minister has emerged from the Smithfield Show today—a show that he assures us was very good—loquacious but unscathed. Obviously, therefore, the temperature there is a little better than it was last year.

Mr. Peart: It was good.

Mr. Hooson: I am very glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance on that matter.
I should like to deal with the clauses which concern the change in the law to prevent harassment. Of course, very few tenant farmers are harassed, but I am amazed that the Conservative Front Bench, in contradistinction to Conservatives below the Gangway, should appear to defend bad landlords. The Conservative Party has members who are very good landlords, and the last thing a good landlord wants to do is to justify the practices of a bad landlord.
The case for preventing harassment is obvious. The situation arises in this way: the legislation which was passed in 1948 was intended to be fair to tenants and to afford protection to them. In fact, it has been found to be too specific, and it enables a landlord to specify the doing of things by a tenant which are even contrary to current agricultural practice. In practice, a completely unjustified burden is sometimes placed on tenants. Yet the arbitrator, knowing of this, has limited powers to enable him to deal with the situation so as to secure justice. All that is required is legislation to relieve the situation, and I am sure that on material reflection the hon. Members for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) will agree that this is necessary. They really must not, as a sort of reflex action, immediately spring to the defence of the landlord whatever he may be doing and whoever he may be. There are in the county of Gwent some very well-documented cases of harassment which have had a good deal of publicity.
I am sorry—as this is a Second Reading debate I can say this—that the Minister has not dealt in greater depth with the protection of tenants. If I recollect correctly, in 1962 and in 1904, before he first came into office, he and I debated the provision of a measure of security for continuation of tenancy, and I question whether, in certain circumstances, in England and Wales a tenancy should, on death, pass from a tenant to a son or near relative, as is the case in Scotland. I am amazed that the Government have not introduced that kind of provision. It is an invidious position for


those on the border. I can remember the time when the right hon. Gentleman was very much in favour of such a provision, and he owes the House an explanation as to why he has not included such a provision in the Bill. He has held the agriculture brief in the Labour Government for many years, and I am surprised that he has not followed the view which he strongly held when in opposition, that the law should be amended in this sort of way.
It is therefore disappointing that the Bill includes no provision affecting the succession to tenancies of sons and near relatives of tenant farmers. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has drawn attention to this need. It particularly affects his own area, as it does the areas of hon. Members in other parts of the House whose constituencies are on the borders of Scotland, where the law is more favourable to tenants. The National Farmers' Union has given clear support to the need for an improvement in the law in England and Wales, as has the Farmers' Union of Wales. I recognise that there are problems in ensuring suitable safeguards for landlords who might suffer hardship if there were too rigid a provision, but I cannot see why there is not included in the Bill such a provision, which could be suitably amended, if necessary, in Committee.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman, as I did on a previous occasion, that in the landlord and tenant Acts and the rent restriction Acts there is a proviso which enables the judge to consider the matter of greater hardship in a number of situations. He may consider whether greater hardship will result to the tenant or a successor to the tenant if an order for possession is made, or whether greater hardship will result to the landlord if no order for possession is made. This is a perfectly reasonable test, and certain rules of precedent could be developed. I am really disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has not included this provision. This is his seventh or eighth year of control of agriculture in the House, and it is time that he came round to some of his original thoughts on this subject.
I now turn to another important provision, contained in the clause which allows more money to be made available

to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. This is clearly very important, because many farmers are finding it very difficult to raise money. I deplore the lack of a radical approach by the Government. The hon. Member for Brightside has already adverted to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation interest rates.
I am told that until this afternoon 14¾ per cent. per annum interest was charged on 5-to-10-year and 10-to-30-year fixed interest loans, with 13 per cent. interest being paid on variable rate loans. I understand that these figures came down ¼ per cent. this afternoon. In France, the Credit Agricole levies only 6½ per cent. on short-term loans, 7 per cent. on medium-term loans up to 15 years—though young farmers can get these at 4 per cent.—and 4½ per cent. on certain long-term loans. I have always believed that one of our greatest mistakes not only in agriculture but in other areas, is to allow current interest rates to be the same internally and externally. The state of the market governs the rate of interest, whether on mortgages for houses, loans for industry or loans through the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. There is an unanswerable case for having two rates of interest—one paid to those who invest from outside this country and the other charged to those who borrow for constructive purposes within this country.
This means Government interference. The French Government now subsidise the fund I mentioned by more than £600 million a year. It is a means of providing certainty to those who borrow money for agriculture. Young farmers who start developments may need years for their plans to reach fruition. If they face variable interest charges, they can fall into serious financial difficulties. I am sorry that the Government have not looked again at the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and thought of ways in which it could be improved.
I am no expert on hops, but I am told that the chairman of a distinguished and reputable brewery has recently extolled the virtues of beer brewed from male hops. It is not for me to enter into the advantages of sexless hops, but a friend of mine, who was a pioneer of hop growing in the Republic of Ireland, told me that these hops were developed in this country. As with the Golden


Delicious apple, which was also developed here, it has been left to other countries to exploit and develop our work. We are left behind in our commercial production. I am sure that the Bill's proposals on hops are to be encouraged. Great care will be needed in the exercise of these powers, and they must be clearly defined, so that they do not impose impossible burdens on affected farms—but the Government are on the right lines.
In Clause 3, reference is made to the duties of the Meat and Livestock Commission in terms of consultation. There is a reference to "relevant organisations". I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can expand on that in his reply, later. There are difficulties in some areas of the country. For instance, we have two unions in Wales—the National Farmers' Union and the Farmers' Union of Wales. Will they both be regarded as relevant organisations? I believe that they should be.
This is a tidying-up measure and, in general, I support the steps taken by the Government, though I wish that they had gone a lot further in many ways. It is so difficult to get time for legislation in this House that it is a great pity that, when they have the time for a miscellaneous provisions Bill, they have not taken the opportunity to introduce radical changes in many aspects of our farm support system, and so on, which could have been of great value to the country.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I am very grateful to the Government for introducing this Bill so early in the Session. It is a great credit to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his officials that the Bill is ready now. If any of my comments remotely appears to be looking such a gift horse in the mouth, I regret it.
As a member of the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament I have frequent opportunities of seeing the differences between the medium- and long-term agricultural credit available to the farming community in this country and that available to competitors in the Community. The difference is very stark. In comparison with the provision of Credit in France, Germany, Denmark and other European countries, British industry, which deals with the Agricultural

Mortgage Corporation at commercial rates of interest, is at a disadvantage. I regret that an opportunity has not been taken to redress that disadvantage. In the Industry Bill passed by the last Government, interest rates were subsidised as a permissible activity in special development areas. Agriculture is a special development sector of the economy. We need to provide subsidised interest rates to encourage growth, and we need a much bolder approach than increasing from £17 million to £30 million or £40 million the money made available to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation.
It is not the amount of money which is crucial; it is the need to provide it at a competitive rate vis-à-vis our European competitors. However much I welcome the rest of the Bill, I regret the absence of this sort of provision and I look forward to my hon. Friend who will reply telling us why it is not feasible to introduce it at the moment.
I am sorry to harp on the European Parliament, but the Commission has become a signatory to the Council of Europe's convention on the control of animals in international transport. How far do the powers taken by the Ministry in Clause 8 of the Bill conform with the powers which become immediately applicable Community law following the accession of the Community to the Council of Europe's convention? I understand that our powers go further than the convention requires and that once again we are in the happy position of saying that this Government and Ministry are in advance of the Council convention in controlling the safety and welfare of animals in international transport.
May I, similarly, on Clauses 9 and 10 put a number of questions which may be more applicable to the Committee stage but which I think should be raised now? Do salmonella diseases come within the ambit considered under the clauses? It is clear from the most modern evidence that among the zoonotic conditions of disease transmission from wild life to domestical animals to human beings, food poisoning along the salmonella chain is probably the most prevalant form, causing considerable illness and general lack of enjoyment of life among both domesticated animals and human beings.
I want to know whether, if it is shown that the little vole is a source of salmonella poisoning among human beings, the Minister will desire to take powers to destroy the little vole in his burrow in the hedge bank. How far is the discomfort of humanity to decide the matter, and how far will it be the profit of the farmer that determines how these powers are used? I ask that because there is a gap between the proper eradication of those diseases that are a threat to the life of humanity and the livelihood of the farmer, and those that are merely an inconvenience to both.
This comes in particular not merely with salmonella but, much more widely, with poultry farms, with the broad range of ornithoses. I want to know whether the wild or semi-wild pheasant is to be eradicated if it is found that there is a remote risk of fowl pest being transmitted from the pheasant to domesticated poultry, even though the disease may originally have been transmitted from domesticated poultry to the pheasant, where it may remain as a reservoir for reinfection. Do these provisions give the Minister power to control this kind of peculiar reinfestation of disease between domestic and wild species?
On a much smaller point, what about fishes? Are the few fish farms that we have in a position to claim that the Minister's advisers can destroy the fish population in neighbouring streams because of the fear, however rational, however well founded, that the farmed fish may run the risk of being infected with disease from which natural wild trout or other fish suffer? It is in those areas that I should like my hon. Friend to indicate, however broadly, where the Minister's thinking lies.
Clause 15 deals with the recoupment of fallaciously claimed grants. I should like to ask a specific question that has been raised vis-à-vis frauds against FEOGA funds. There appears to be some legal doubt whether the law as it now stands enables the Commission, via the British Government, to take such action as would enable it to recoup the costs of a grant made as a result of a false declaration.
What I should like to know even more is whether this provision enables that recoupment to take into account the interest that should be paid, or a

loss in the value of money. Clearly, if the process of finding out takes between two and a half and three years and I can have this money, free, for that time and then have to pay back the original principal and my liability is destroyed, compared with the position under a lending by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, it is extremely cheap money. I am not certain that even under the powers in Clause 15 it will be possible for the Ministry, at a time of high inflation, to recover not merely the principal sum that it provided by way of grant but also the loss in value of that money. Are these grant recoupment provisions inflation-proofed? Do they allow for the recoupment of interest? If they do not, the unscrupulous will be encouraged to make false claims, in the certain knowledge that they will not be financially out of pocket if they so do.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: What does the hon. Gentleman propose? We have all had examples of farmers failing to obtain a grant. A farmer may fail to obtain a grant because he has been late in applying, or because he has not filled in the necessary form properly. He may fail administratively to collect the grant, and lose thousands of pounds.

Mr. Hughes: If a farmer has not received money from the State as a result of a fraudulent or false claim it does not become the responsibility of the State to make good that loss. If the farmer has received money as the result of a fraudulent or false claim it ill-becomes the State not to recover that money, plus the proper interest and/or inflation-proofing. I accept that in many cases farmers have failed to get grants to which they believed themselves entitled under the law. I accept that this has been due to their own fault, or because they have been ill-advised.
What I am concerned with is the situation when, with fraudulent intent, a farmer makes a false claim and receives the money. As I understand it, all that the State can claim back is the capital sum. If there is a two-year or three-year gap, and the sum is £1,000, the purchasing value of that sum at the end of the period will be less than £800. I am asking, first, whether these provisions cover the recoupment of


FEOGA grants from the Community and, secondly, whether they cover the recoupment of more than just the capital sum.
Turning next to the clauses dealing with the tenant and landlord, I welcome wholeheartedly the provisions for dealing with the problem of harassment, and I totally deny the comments of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who said that there was a shortage of evidence on this matter. Labour Members are in no doubt that there is sufficient evidence, however localised, to indicate that this has become a real problem, and one for which we must legislate now to protect the tenant and the good landlord against the evils of harassment. Such a provision is long overdue.
I turn now to deal briefly with my major fear. On 7th December 1967, in answer to the previous Member for Merioneth, Mr. Will Edwards, my right hon. Friend said, on the question of the protection of tenants:
I will consider the case for a similar change in England and Wales"—
as compared with Scotland—
in the course of the review of agricultural holdings legislation which is now taking place"—[Official Report, 7th December 1967; Vol. 755, c. 377.]
I am glad that the process of reviewing is still continuing. I regret that it may be a little lengthy, but I regret far more the fact that, having said in "Labour's Programme 1973" that we would take steps to deal with this problem, the measures for doing so are absent from the Bill. I accept that it was not part of the manifestos upon which the Labour Party fought the elections last year, but many Government supporters believed then, and still believe, that the position of the widow and the next-of-kin tenants on the death of the original tenant is insufficiently protected.
If we go back to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1851, we see that the position of the landlord is more than adequately protected. That Act provided that:
…instead of claims to emblements the tenants shall continue to occupy and hold such farm or lands until the expiry of the then current year.
In the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, the same provision, protecting the landlord's interest in the event of his death,

was continued. Today, when land holding is very much a corporate matter, the number of cases of considerable hardship caused by the absence of an adequate tenant right is growing.
I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary whether the simple deletion of paragraph (g) from Section 24(2) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 would enable us to achieve the objective which most of us have in view. I know that my hon. Friend is well aware of this provision, dealing with the restriction of notices to quit, but perhaps I may remind the House of it. It provides that:
The foregoing subsection shall not apply…where the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy was made had died within three months before the date of the giving of the notice to quit, and it is stated in the notice that it is given by reason of the matter aforesaid.
This is where the inability to refer the case to the Lands Tribunal is enshrined. As long as the landlord complies with paragraph (g) by giving the notice within three months and stating that the death is the reason for giving that notice, the Lands Tribunal is excluded.
Of course, there is a need for arbitration by the Lands Tribunal, but it is quite clear that the balance between the proper interests of the landlord and the proper interests of the tenant and his family is now unequal. Although I welcome wholeheartedly the remainder of this Bill, I regret deeply the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends have not taken this opportunity to provide for the tenant farmers of England and Wales that protection which those in Scotland have enjoyed for more than seven years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Paul Hawkins.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, Southwest) rose—

Mr. Hooson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I spoke of this being the first agriculture debate, I omitted to disclose an interest, namely, that I farm a hill farm. Most hon. Members who take an interest in agriculture know this fact. In so far as it was an omission, I hasten to take this opportunity to repair it. However, I want also your guidance. Now that there is a register of interests, are hon. Members expected to make disclosures as before?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the normal requirements that we used to follow still persist. If the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has a farm, which I happen to know well, we are getting to a ridiculous position if we require him to declare that interest. If we pursue this too far, we shall require an hon. Member to declare that he lives in a house.

Mr. Stainton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to delay the debate unduly, but the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has touched upon a most important point. There is a register of interests now which is available to all right hon. and hon. Members. Rather than go through this boring and tiresome repetition or recitation of interests every time one gets to one's feet, ought not the register to suffice? Wheresoever derives the ruling which you have just given?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My ruling is quite clear. I am not in the slightest doubt about it. If an hon. Member has a direct interest in the subject under discussion, he is still required to remind us of it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it normal for an hon. Member to declare an interest when he makes a speech if he thinks that it is necessary to do so? It is still a matter for his own judgment. Clearly, in a debate of this kind, many hon. Members are interested in farming, and have farms. In the normal circumstances of the past, it has been taken as recognised by the House that certain hon. Members have farms, and it has been left at that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) is right. The hon. Member concerned carries personal responsibility. However, my interest is in continuing the debate. Mr. Paul Hawkins.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: In view of those exchanges, I had better begin by declaring my interest. I am a chartered surveyor and I have been concerned with a number of arbitrations. For that reason, I may have something of value to add to our discussion of Clauses 11 and 12.
This is yet another Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and it is the fourth that we have had since I have been a Member of Parliament. Nevertheless there are always some interesting provisions in such a Bill, though I hasten to add that that is not to be taken as meaning necessarily that I hope to serve on the Standing Committee which considers the Bill.
I am sorry to see that the Minister has left the Chamber. Perhaps his junior Ministers will convey to him the invitation that I was about to extend to him. Since he has been to the Smithfield Show, I should very much like him to come to the King's Lynn Show which is being held next Tuesday, where he will see equally good cattle and be as well entertained as obviously he was today.
I pass, then, to the Bill. On Clause 2, I want only to emphasise what the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) have said, because we are at a great disadvantage in this country given the level of interest rates. The Agricultural Mortgage Corporation does a first-class job. However, I hope that Ministers will consider the request by the AMC about the co-ownership plans which it wants to put into effect. Before very long, I hope too that we shall have talks with our neighbours and partners in Europe about interest rates, because there is no doubt that our partners over the water are at an advantage compared with ourselves.
Coming to Clause 3, I should like to think that all the bodies already represented on the production and distribution committees will be consulted individually. What is more, I trust that this will mean full consultation. So often it is found that parties are consulted only at the last minute and simply told what the Government say that somebody intends to do, with the result that there is not time for that body to put forward sensible suggestions and have them considered carefully by all the other interested parties. I hope to have the Minister's reassurance about this.
Clause 4 of the Bill concerns the proficiency payments scheme, which has not done as well as many people had hoped. I do not believe that as many farm men have been included in the craftsmen's rates as should have been.


I welcome the new flat-rate increase of £6 a week. I was glad that the NFU and the NUAW agreed and that there was no fight over the matter of giving the farm workers a thoroughly deserved increase of £6 to bring them a little closer to their industrial fellow-workers. But the flat-rate increase means that there is now a much narrower gap between the general worker who does not receive a proficiency payment and the skilled man. The craftsman who receives the proficiency payment should have a real advantage over the man who does not.
My interests include the cattle markets, where the weighing of cattle will be a major problem with the introduction of metrication under Clause 7. I understand that there have been consultations on the matter, but it is not only a question of consulting over the weighing and the correct weights to which cattle should be weighed. It is a question of having the weighbridges marked, of obtaining the right parts and seeing that Messrs. Avery and others turn out the weighbridges in metric form. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not introduce the Regulations on metrication before it is practically possible to bring them into effect.
As the Minister himself said, if we pass Clause 10, the clause concerning entry on to land, we shall be giving him major powers. The average Ministry official would use them sensibly and efficiently and would give plenty of warning, but certain entries on to land in my area recently have caused considerable concern. Two house-owners came home to find their hedges bulldozed down and a bulldozer working in their gardens. They had received no notice. When they tackled the borough surveyor concerned, he said that he had twice sent round to the houses but nobody was at home, and he did not have time to post a letter. That sort of thing will not work on farmlands. I hope that we shall write sufficient safeguards into the clause to see that busybodies do not walk on to other people's land, armed with various weapons, as far as I can see, to destroy pests that they think may be on the land.
I come next to Clause 11, which I should like to consider in a little more detail. I have often acted as an arbitrator,

and I have also acted for tenants and landlords in representations to an arbitrator. I have no bee in my bonnet about one side or the other, but we must remember that at the outset the tenant has signed an agreement, in which he agrees to clauses concerning such matters as the maintenance of the farmhouse, if it is a full repairing lease, the maintenance of hedges, drains and so on, and the maintenance of guttering round the farm buildings. Everyone knows how important that is.
However, I have heard of one case which might be called harassment in which a friend of mine was arbitrator. The arbitration concerned a small farm run by an elderly couple who had an old set of farm buildings in Suffolk, consisting of clay lump and timber. The landlord, who had recently bought the farm, had nothing to do with agriculture. He was a townsman. When he saw the price of land go up in about 1972 he was determined to get rid of the tenant, and he served him with a notice to do everything possible in the way of repair to what I should describe as redundant buildings. Yet there are provisions in the Agricultural Holdings Act which would have enabled him to have the buildings declared redundant.
The clause gives an arbitrator major powers which I am not sure he will greatly welcome, including powers to override a tenancy completely. I assume that there are overriding powers to decide what type of materials should be used for repair, such as cheaper materials in the place of more expensive materials. We must be careful to see that in pleasant villages built in the same materials we do not enable cheapjack buildings to be put up or cheapjack repairs to be done in the place of traditional repairs with traditional materials.
I see nothing in the Bill to say that on doing away with some of the tenant's responsibilities the arbitrator can award an additional rent. Can he do so? It seems only fair that he should be able to do so if he felt it right. The clause gives major powers to one man. He has a big burden in deciding these matters.
I should hate to see any good tenant turned out on a triviality, as happened in the case which I described. Therefore, I am prepared to support the measure so


long as there are sufficient safeguards on the question of overriding the tenancy and on the giving of further instructions to the arbitrator on the lines he should follow. A code of conduct or instructions must be issued if guidance is not given in the Bill. Such a code or instructions could be sent out after consultation with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and other bodies, such as the NFU and the CLA, on the arbitrator's exact powers.
I have my doubts about the clause. I have never believed that it was good to introduce legislation for one or two cases. As a general rule, farmers are far better advised today than they were in the past, and they are far more alive to their legal responsibilities. Of course, an agreement should not be signed unless the signatory is certain about what he is undertaking. On the other hand, a friend of mine who was an arbitrator was loth to do what he had to do and what he had no chance of avoiding. If we could find a middle course, I should reluctantly accept this change.
On Clause 12, I wonder whether it is necessary to bring in the Agricultural Land Tribunal as well as the arbitrator. I should have thought that all these cases could have gone either to the Tribunal or to the arbitrator. I may be wrong about that, but I should have thought that the bringing in of the two groups will confuse farmers and their advisers. It seems unnecessary.
Quite a strong point has been made about the extending of a tenancy to near relatives. I remember that this issue was raised in a previous Miscellaneous Provisions Bill. I remember how the Government of the day produced such a provision in Committee. I sincerely hope that the Government will not adopt that approach on this occasion. If such a provision is to be introduced, let us have it right away and let us do something about it now.
I declare a personal interest in that I have a close relative who is the third generation in a farm. He was in Cirencester when his father fell seriously ill. He returned and ran the farm for 12 years. His father lived for those 12 years completely incapacitated. However, when the father died the son was not granted the tenancy. I have sympathy

for people who find themselves in that position. I remember very well a former colleagues of ours, Will Edwards, raising this matter in strong terms. He wanted the Scottish provisions extended to England and Wales.
Despite my personal experience, I believe that by this measure we shall drive more land out of letting by landlords to tenants. I believe strongly in the landlord and tenant system. I believe that this enables young farmers to get into farms when they would never have a chance of farming otherwise. I should of like to see more land taken in hand and sold to farming companies rather than let to tenants. Unless a tenancy provision is closely drawn—I believe that the Scottish provision was far too widely drawn in that it ended up allowing a daughter, grand-daughter or niece, someone who had nothing to do with farming, to have the tenancy—it will only do harm to farming.
If there is any likelihood of a provision of that sort being introduced into the Bill, I ask the Minister to say something about it when he replies to the debate. I do not believe that the way in which it was done on a previous occasion was the correct way to proceed. It created much ill feeling when it was pushed in at the last moment.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: Let me reassure the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) that, if the Government do not announce the intention this evening, some of my hon. Friends and I will certainly be prepared to introduce a clause to protect the succession. I am sure that we shall have some assistance from certain Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman need not go from here feeling too unhappy if the Government let him down.
I am glad that certain battle lines are being clearly defined. I am pleased that some Opposition Members are coming out with their stance on land, tenant farmers and landlordism. It is just as well to establish the battle lines so that we can go into Committee knowing how the land lies, so to speak.
I welcome the Bill as it contains some long-awaited clauses. I welcome Clause 8, which brings in some added protection and long-needed safeguards concerning


the welfare of animals when exported. At one stage I opposed the export of live animals. That was then we discovered that certain things were taking place that many of us considered obnoxious. Recently I supported the export of live animals on the basis that rigid safeguards would be introduced. We were saddened to discover just after the debate that in certain instances quite atrocious happenings took place. Publicity was given to those matters on television and the subject was highlighted. If we can tighten up the regulations, that will be all to the good.
Clauses 11 and 12, to which I shall address myself especially, concern harassment. I was rather surprised by the remarks of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). He did not acknowledge that he had not seen evidence of this kind of harassment, but he said that the CLA had not seen it. Be that as it may, there has been sufficient evidence and it has been publicised. Some quite disgraceful behaviour has taken place in the practice of issuing notices—

Mr. Jopling: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the advantage of seeing the brief which was issued for this debate by the Country Landowners' Association, but in case he has not I refer him to the third paragraph, which I quoted earlier, which reads:
No evidence has been produced to the CLA.
I think that the hon. Gentleman tries to put words into the mouth of the CLA. He is not fair to do that in view of that statement.

Mr. Roderick: Whether or not evidence has been produced to the CLA, the hon. Gentleman has not made it clear whether he has received evidence. The Ministers concerned have had plenty of evidence. I have seen evidence and I know that some Opposition Members have seen it. We should not rely unnecessarily on one body which has not received evidence. I know that Ministers have had evidence from various sources. It is perhaps an insignificant fact that one body has not received it. A lack of evidence in one quarter does not mean that evidence does not exist.
I welcome Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill in that they go some way towards giving some protection to tenants. In my area landlords wishing to be rid of tenants have served notices requiring a multitude of repairs to be carried out that are quite beyond the powers and resources of ordinary tenants to fulfil in the agreed time. As my right hon. Friend said, evidence has been received from South-East Wales, and as my constituency borders on that area I have first-hand knowledge. I have knowledge from my own constituency.
Pressure has been brought on tenants by way of violence and damage to property—damage which has occurred in suspicious circumstances when it has been difficult to prove a connection. A tenant of a small farm has been ordered to pay as much as £4,500 in cost involved in remedying certain breaches. This is totally unfair when we consider that there is a maximum figure of £500 which a landlord can pay for remedying his side of the bargain. It has been suggested that any costings in these notices should take into account the rent of the farm so that there would be an upper limit in proportion to the rent obtainable on the farm.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Member mentions damages of £4,500 set against the tenant and a figure of £500 for the landlord. I do not know what he can mean about an arbitration on that subject producing those figures. It has to be borne in mind what the agreement for a particular farm specifies. If it is a full repairing agreement, it means what it says—that all the responsibility for repairs for the buildings and the house falls on the tenant. If the tenant has signed that agreement, it is, quite rightly, his legal responsibility.

Mr. Roderick: I seemed to detect in the hon. Member's earlier remarks that he was dissatisfied with the situation to some extent and has seen certain activities of which he would not approve. I am advised that the £500 is the ceiling for the amount of costs that can be expected of a landlord at any one time. I may be wrong. Perhaps the Minister can correct me later.
There appears to be a lack of faith among tenant farmers in the arbitration process. I have come across this again


and again. It has been put to me that the arbitrator should certainly be a full-time Government official rather than, as so often happens, a land agent who has interests in the area. That cannot lead to the tenant farmer having any confidence in him. It is also suggested that a committee of farmers, whether owners or tenants, should sit to consider the list of items contained in the notice and should later consider, when the work has been done, whether it has been carried out satisfactorily.

Mr. Hawkins: I must interrupt the hon. Member again. I cannot allow him to make those remarks about arbitrators, who are appointed by the Lord Chancellor as thoroughly independent people to arbitrate between the parties. These arbitrators are chosen by the advisers to the tenant and the landlord. If the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, they turn to the Minister of Agriculture and an arbitrator is appointed from a panel provided by the Lord Chancellor. No—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has already addressed the House for 18 minutes. This is his second long intervention.

Mr. Roderick: Mr. Roderick rose—

Mr. Jopling: Withdraw.

Mr. Roderick: I was trying to make a point about a lack of faith in the arbitrators. If an arbitrator is seen to be involved in land transactions—

Mr. Jopling: You did not say that.

Mr. Roderick: I think I made it clear that tenants are suspicious about land agents being appointed as arbitrators. It is a pity that these people are used. The tenants to whom I have spoken prefer to see Government officials appointed to this task, even though they may sometimes be suspicious of such officials.
Legal aid should be available for tenants involved in arbitration cases, not only for the actual proceedings but also for the preparation of the case. I say this because I have come across a case of blackmail in this respect, and I use that word advisedly. It works in this way. An impossible list of items is presented on a notice of work to be

done, causing considerable distress to the farmer and his family. The farmer seeks the advice of a barrister, and a case for arbitration is prepared.
Before the arbitration takes place, the landlord withdraws all or some of the items. This still leaves the tenant to pay the costs. This is a pressure that is exerted. I know of a case when it was done. If such attempts were to be repeated a few times, a farmer would be broken financially or in spirit, if not both.

Mr. Hooson: There are instances where that process has been repeated on a number of occasions.

Mr. Roderick: That reinforces my request for the Government to look carefully at the question of providing legal aid to tenants in this situation.
I wish to touch briefly on the subject of the rights of succession for tenant families. What is good enough for Scotland is good enough for England and Wales. What Scotland has, we would like too. I can see no reason for the omission of this point from the Bill. If the Government are not able to make us a promise about this, some of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will seek to remedy the omission in Committee. I say that not only should there be a right of succession for the near family relations on the death of a farmer but on the retirement of a farmer there should be certain rights.
I trust that the Bill will be read a Second time and that its omissions will be made good in Committee.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I am glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) since much of what I have to say will underline some of the points he has made. I welcome the Bill generally, but I wish to pay most attention to Clauses 11 and 12.
Clauses 11 and 12 go at least some part of the way to removing what has been a grave injustice from which some tenant farmers have suffered by way of excessive harassment. In welcoming the Bill I congratulate the Gwent Tenant Farmers' Association on the splendid fight it has put up in this connection. I


congratulate also the BBC for spotlighting the tyrannical activities of a few landlords in Mr. Christopher Brasher's programme "Who is Buying up Britain?" which was shown in September 1974.
An intolerable situation had been created by a few bad landlords, like Llanover Holdings, a company which, I believe, belongs to a former Lord-Lieutenant of Monmouthshire. When Llanover Holdings wants to evict a tenant so that it can make more profit from its land, one of the methods it employs is to serve a breach order on the tenant. Such an order has frequently had numerous items, some of them impossible to execute. The same tenant can get more than one of these orders. There is apparently no limit to the number that can be served.
Among the victims of this procedure were two members of one family in Gwent whom I know personally, as does the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor. About four years ago Llanover Holdings tried to force upon a 79-year-old farmer, Isaac Evans—who had been a miner before he became a farmer—a feudal tenancy agreement which included, for instance, the preservation of all foxes on his land. This tenancy agreement would have fundamentally changed the joint tenancy which he shared with his son Raymond. If he had signed the new agreement, Raymond would have lost the farm upon his father's death.
Naturally Isaac Evans refused to sign. Llanover Holdings responded by serving a breach order requiring 175 repairs including the rebuilding of two dry stone walls, one of them 100 yards long and the other 80 yards long. Both walls had been in ruins for at least 70 years, as neighbours testified. The conditions laid down by Llanover Holdings could be compared with the impossible task which was given to Culhwch by Ysbaddaden Pencawr in an Arthurian tale in the Mabinogion. Yet Isaac Evans, through mighty labours, completed the task. He spent the whole summer heroically rebuilding those useless walls.

Mr. Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question which I put to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard)? Did the tenant pursue the course open to him in law by going to arbitration, and did the arbitrator rule that the walls should be rebuilt? If the

tenant did not go to arbitration, the case which the hon. Gentleman is making is despicable, to say the least. As the hon. Gentleman is being specific, it is only reasonable that both sides of the case should be put.

Mr. Evans: I shall pursue that point a little later. Yes, he did go to arbitration.
An even greater burden was imposed by Llanover Holdings on another son, Isaac Evans junior, on whom it served a breach order containing 386 items. That massive document was put into my hands, and I passed it on to the Ministry of Agriculture after a meeting with the Minister which I attended in company with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor.
Isaac Evans junior is 58 years old. He was disabled in Normandy and is a 30 per cent. war pensioner who took a farm with a £200 grant from the Officers' Association and made a success of it. Four of his six children have been through college or university. Two months ago he wrote to me in these terms:
I am under intense pressure and worry due to the fear of eviction. My wife is ill and my two teenage daughters worry. The breach order has put me deeply in debt. I have had two arbitrations and am threatened with two more.
He said, too—and he told me again today—that agents now walk on his farm in twos, as they do on other farms belonging to the same estate. He alleges that the police have been used by the estate to add to the harassment. I should like that matter to be investigated.
Arbitrations can be very costly. One tenant, to my knowledge, paid £600 in arbitration costs. This persecution has caused terrible strain to a number of farming families and has resulted in mental breakdown and even death.
Clause 12 enables tenants who are served with a notice to quit in consequence of a breach order in certain conditions to serve a counter-notice which will bring the matter before the agricultural land tribunal. The tribunal will be empowered to reject the notice to quit if it appears to the tribunal that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession. There are 10,000 tenant farmers in Wales who will warmly welcome this amendment to the 1947 Act as


a contribution towards reducing the harassment of tenant farmers. It is a valuable curb on the rapacity of unscrupulous landlords who are, fortunately, few in number.
I have to express my disappointment that the Government go no further towards ensuring justice and security for tenant farmers. I briefly note further improvements in their situation which they think necessary.
First, the agricultural land tribunal should be empowered to compel a landlord to remedy his breaches of tenancy agreements in the same way as a tenant is required to remedy his. Where a landlord fails to remedy a breach, the Minister of Agriculture should be empowered to fix a compulsory sale price for the holding, the tenant having sole right to purchase.
Second, the list of items contained in a breach order should be considered by a committee of farmers to decide whether the list is reasonable or practicable. Such a committee should have formal recognition by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Welsh Office, and it should be empowered to alter the list if necessary. That is far preferable to giving this power to an arbitrator. At present, arbitrators might also be land agents or auctioneers, the very people employed by landlords in the lucrative business of drafting and serving breach orders and notices to quit. When, on 20th December 1974, I asked whether the Government would take steps to ensure that no land agents were appointed to arbitration panels, the reply was that the Government were not prepared to introduce the legislation required for this purpose, although it would have required no more than a clause in this Bill.
Third, it would be fairer if the arbitrator were a Government officer, not someone with a vested interest in land prices, rent, auctions and so on.
Fourth, the work required by a breach order should be inspected by the committee of farmers. It is the farmers who should decide whether the order has been complied with.
Fifth, arbitration should be public, so that justice can be seen to be done, and the same should apply, on the request of the tenant, to agricultural land tribunals.
Sixth, the cost and the amount of work involved in remedying a breach order should bear some valuable relation to the profitability of the holding and its labour force.
Seventh, where a landlord withdraws items in a breach order before or during arbitration, the tenant should be entitled to claim costs from the landlord in respect of legal fees incurred in preparing or conducting a defence against these items.
Eighth, the Government should deal with the issue of legal aid. On 20th December 1974 I asked whether the Government would take steps to ensure that free legal aid was available to all tenant farmers appearing before an agricultural land tribunal. The Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Advisory Committee recommended that legal aid should be extended to all statutory tribunals within the supervision of the Council on Tribunals, including the agricultural land tribunals. This matter is still being investigated, and I hope that it will be resolved with some sense of urgency.
Ninth, I regret that the Government have not dealt with the major issue of farm tenure. Insecurity of tenure remains a cause of great distress. I have just had a vicious example in my neighbourhood. This practice is used by some landlords to change the character of a whole community. I have known of this in several areas in Wales. The Gwent Tenant Farmers' Association proposes that on the sale of a holding a sitting tenant and, secondly, a member of the tenant's family should be given the opportunity to purchase the holding. On the tenant's death, the spouse or other member of the immediate family who has been engaged in farming the holding should be allowed to take a tenancy under the existing tenancy agreement, any rent adjustment to be subject to the current three-year limit. Such provisions would be warmly welcomed throughout Wales, especially in the constituencies of Caernarvon and Merioneth. The hon. Members representing those constituencies have asked me to raise this matter.

6.38 p.m.

Dr. Colin Phipps: I must declare an interest in that I own a farm and farm it.
I should like to refer to two clauses. The first—Clause 2—deals with additional money to be made available to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. Interest rates have been referred to by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), and it is important to appreciate that the current interest rates charged by the AMC are about 13¾ per cent., depending on whether the mortgage is a fixed-interest or a flexible-interest mortgage. Interest rates have been as high as 15 per cent. in the past 12 months.
Taking an average price for agricultural land of £500 an acre—it may be slightly higher—on an AMC loan of 13 per cent. a borrower pays £65 per acre in interest every year. In addition, a person who has an endowment mortgage scheme over a long period of time pays at least another £15 per acre. The total cost per year is now about £80 per acre. This effectively means that only two classes of individual can buy agricultural land.
There are existing farmers who already have land in hand at low historical prices who can use the money they make on acres they already possess to subsidise new land. There are also very rich individuals who pay high taxes and who are able to gain tax relief so that it is attractive for them to borrow money. Given that £80 an acre is about the maximum one could expect to make out of farm land at £500 an acre, it is almost totally impossible for any new entrant to come into farming as a landowner. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) that young persons are not able to become farm owners today.
Should we not be looking at other uses for the Government funds given to the AMC? It is important that the AMC should have funds to make loans available to classes of persons who can afford to buy agricultural land, but younger persons who want to enter farming will not be able to do so, certainly in the current ecenomic conditions of farming. Some of the money, therefore, should be used by the Government to purchase agricultural land and make it available to let to new young farmers. The ownership of the land that is to be tenanted can come only from the Government if we are to have an increase in the number of tenanted farms.
We need a review by the Ministry of this very difficult question of how we are

to encourage younger men to become tenant farmers. At the moment it is impossible for them to buy a farm. Although I am in favour in principle of passing tenancies from father to son, this is no way to encourage new tenancies. The Government may be able to play a significant rôle apart from the money they make available to the AMC for purchase.
Another aspect has not aroused consideration in the debate so far. It seems that no one thinks it of importance, yet it is significant. It concerns Clause 6—the statistical clause—and the powers that the Ministry will have to obtain statistics about certain marginal land. But I am more concerned with the statistics that the Ministry is not able to obtain and with the powers which are not being taken. I have received various figures on this, but I understand that we lose to urban development each year between 50,000 and 80,000 acres of agricultural land. If these acres are to be replaced, it has to be by marginal land. But to turn marginal land into effective agricultural land requires an investment of about £200 an acre, or £16 million a year. Even this investment in marginal land will not produce land as good as the land being taken up for urban development which is valued at about £500 an acre.
We need statistics on derelict land. It is a shame that there is no relationship between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment whereby we could get statistics for derelict land. If we have to spend £200 an acre to replace agricultural land, I would rather see it spent on derelict land to make it suitable for agriculture than on marginal land which will not be of the quality of that which is being lost to urban development. There is a gap here. We need to have these statistics so that the Minister has a case to make, saying, in effect, "We are having to spend £16 million a year to replace good quality land. Why not keep good quality land for agriculture and use the money instead on the derelict land which is an eyesore and detrimental to the environment?"
We should thereby be doing good in two ways. First, we would not be losing agricultural land but recovering and beautifying new land in our derelict urban areas and in industrial areas. If the White Paper "Food from Our Own


Resources" is really to succeed, it is not just a question of getting more and more from existing land, but we are being asked to get more and more from less land. Will the Minister consider the question not only of making our land more productive but of saving it?

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) has made some sensible remarks. There is much validity in what he has said. He made some pertinent remarks about the difficulties facing young men who want to go into farming. I agree with him in this respect. But I am against his suggestion that the Government should involve themselves in the purchasing of land so as to become a landowner.
I say that for two reasons. First, it would yet again mean more Government expenditure—and there are far too many demands on that already. Secondly, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman remembers that many, if not all, county councils already own smallholding estates specifically to provide an opportunity and first step for people going into the industry. I accept, of course, that even in spite of this service there are inadequate opportunities. But however much we widened the opportunities, as the hon. Member and I both wish to, we would still have a supply inadequate for the demand.

Dr. Phipps: I should have made it clear—I hoped I had—that I was discussing not additional Government expenditure but the possibility of making some of the AMC funds, currently being used by the rich to get income tax relief, available for the purchase of land to enable new young farmers to get tenancies.

Mr. Morrison: I take the point.
There have been two remarks in the debate which cannot go without comment. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) stated that not only the present Labour Government but, so far as I could make out, all Labour Governments had an outstanding record in agriculture. I cannot help feeling that that statement might be misconstrued if it is not developed. If Labour Governments have an outstanding agricultural record, it is outstanding only in the sense

of falling production, near bankruptcy, a minus quantity of confidence and an erosion of capital within the industry.
The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) advocated cheap credit on European lines. More thought must certainly be given to this subject. In the past it was always my understanding that the level of our capital grant, coupled with the relatively low current rates of interest, was to the greater advantage of the United Kingdom farmers than was the cheap credit system to European farmers. But given that we now have lower capital grants than was the case some time ago, and that we have much higher interest rates, it is a matter to which the Parliamentary Secretary should apply himself. I should like him to comment on the remarks on this subject by the hon. Member for Durham and myself.
I know nothing about hops, but two points on Clause 5 interest me. First, will the Parliamentary Secretary say how a layman, who may be living in an area on which an order for the control of male hops has been placed, will tell the difference between male and female hops? Is there an easy way of recognition? Secondly, there is the question of ornamental hops. I do not know whether the ornamental hops which people grow in their gardens are seedless, or male and female. There may be a problem here. I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to go into great detail on this matter tonight, but perhaps it should be sorted out in Committee.
Clause 9 deals with the power to provide for the destruction of wildlife. The House finds itself in a paradoxical situation. Usually we are much more concerned with the conservation of wildlife, but now circumstance, or possible circumstance, demands that the power of destruction should be given to the Minister. In the circumstances described by the Minister, that is only common sense.
There is, however, an air of stealth about Clause 9. I was glad to hear the Minister say that under subsection (3) he would consider the possibility of consultation with bodies other than the Nature Conservancy Council. I would have been worried if he had not said that. The NFU and the CLA, and possibly the RSPCA, should be consulted. Furthermore, as it might be a question of dealing not only with farm animals but with


poultry, it would seem sensible to consider the possibility of including among those to be consulted the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Game Conservancy, in which I declare an interest as a vice-chairman and which has assisted the Ministry of Agriculture over the question of fowl-pest.
It might be worth considering the possibility of consulting the Severn Wildfowl Trust because, as the Parliamentary Secretary will know, there are geese in many parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in Scotland, and, although one hopes that it would never happen, it is not possible to guarantee that they will not become carriers of disease. Should that occur, it would be proper for the greatest experts on the subject, namely, the Wildfowl Trust, to be consulted, because I understand that it has the most detailed records on wild geese populations.
I am a little concerned about subsection (7) of Clause 9, which provides:
Before commencing the destruction of the wild members of a species…the appropriate authority shall take all reasonable steps to inform the occupier of the land…
I do not understand why "the appropriate authority" should simply "take all reasonable steps". I should have thought that it should inform the occupier of the land. Again this is a Committee point, but it is important.
In passing, I emphasise the concern expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) about the implications of Clause 10.
The second comment which cannot go uncontradicted was made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). He said in reply to the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland, when he referred to Clause 11, had implied that the Conservative Party was speaking in defence of bad landlords. My hon. Friend was doing no such thing. He was speaking in defence of the good landlord. Everyone on the Opposition Benches is against the harassment of tenants, but the occasional examples of harassment of tenants are not an argument for including in the Bill a provision which could work to the disadvantage of all landlords and many tenants.
It must be right and proper for the law to maintain an adequate balance between the interests and rights of tenants and landlords. Until the publication of this Bill, my impression was that existing legislation adequately maintained the balance. However, in view of the Bill and of what has been said, further consideration must be given to this matter. It must be treated with considerable care in the interests of tenants as much as in the interests of landlords.
Of course Clauses 11 and 12 could become somewhat academic, because if we continue on the present crazy path it may not be long before the landlord-tenant system is destroyed for the simple reason that capital taxation will have ensured that no landlord can continue in business. I hope that that will not happen. Even if it does, it will not be for some time, so we must have regard to the present situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland said that possibly Clause 11 could constitute a charter for bad tenants. It could also be to the disadvantage of good tenants. If the law is to allow for the possibility, given the new proposals for arbitration, of a tenant not to live up to the undertaking which he has freely given within his tenancy agreement, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that landlords will try to obtain higher rents as an insurance against the situation so that they have the opportunity of maintaining the building on let farms.
The implication is that Clauses 11 and 12 will become operative only when the landlord's notice to do repair work includes items which are considered to be unnecessary and unjustified. At the end of the day, those repairs are matters of opinion. If the arbitrator's award is against the landlord, the landlord might still decide to go ahead with the work on his own behalf and in the interests of the future maintenance of the farm. If he did that, it is possible that he would have less money available to spend on the farms of the better tenants.
Therefore, we have to proceed carefully and a great deal more discussion is needed on Clauses 11 and 12. In all likelihood they will have to be amended to take account of the criticisms which have been made during this debate.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: Like almost every hon. Member who has taken part in this debate, I declare my interest, although I sometimes believe that I shall not be required to do so for much longer.
The Minister of Agriculture denounced my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) as "Mr. Gloom". I am gloomy about agriculture now, and that gloom is founded upon one factor, namely, that the rewards for the efficient producer are getting closer and closer to the rewards for the marginal producer. If that gap continues to narrow, the result will be extremely bad for agriculture, yet the gap will continue to narrow so long as we have a Government who try to stimulate artificially the production of food, because the whole purpose of that stimulation is to bring in more and more marginal producers who would not otherwise be in the market.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland called the Bill "a poor thing". He was absolutely right. The best part of the Bill is the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which, for once, makes the Bill clear and is most helpful.
However, the Bill is also a scratching-about Bill. Agriculture needs something much more drastic. Our greatest industry now needs the surgeon's knife to root out and sever altogether the growth of inter-ventionism. The Bill gives the Minister still more control over agriculture. In effect, it means that the awful coalition of politician and civil servant is equipped to deal with many of the decisions affecting agriculture.
When I first received a copy of the Bill I glanced rather idly through it. One phrase caught my eye—"the competent authority". I wondered what "the competent authority" was. I turned to the interpretation clause, and there it was—the Minister of Agriculture. With respect to the Minister, I do not believe him to be competent. I do not believe that any Minister of Agriculture is or can be competent to make essentially commercial decisions on behalf of an industry that is as great and as diverse as agriculture. The only people who are equipped to make those decisions are the farmers themselves. Individually, they will make many howlers, and quite a few will go bankrupt in the process. That has been

the story of agriculture from the beginning, and will always be the case. However, collectively, farmers will be far better at making the decisions that concern agriculture than anyone imposed on them from above.
If "competent" is not the right adjective to apply to the Minister, the noun "authority" certainly is, because the Bill goes still further towards making the Minister of Agriculture authoritarian. I use that word—it is rather a hideous one—advisedly. If one canters through some of the provisions of the Bill one can see how true it is.
Clause 5 concerns the growing of hops, and creates a new crime. If someone is a grower of male hops in this non-sexist age to which we have been introduced, in certain areas he will be brought before a magistrates' court and punished. He will be made to stand—I am putting it in plain terms—where other criminals stand. It is the Minister alone who decides the areas, and which farmers are to be treated as criminals.
Clause 7 deals with metrication. I was rather horrified when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland say that he heard that from next February all the measurements that are published by the Ministry will be metric. My hon. Friend has made the point well enough already and I do not want to emphasise it, but agriculture is not ready for this. If it is sensible to impose metric measurements—and perhaps it is—let them be accepted naturally and gradually. To thrust them down the throats of farmers as speedily as this will give rise to a major irritant, and will do the cause of metrication no good whatever. If we are to use metric measurements, I hope the Minister will ensure that, certainly for the first few years, we shall have both measurements in any documents that are published—including the price review—even if they are put in parenthesis. Some of us know exactly how large an acre is, and every farmer will be sorry to see that measurement disappear. Every working farmer is able to go into a field, certainly up to 10 acres, and know exactly how many acres it covers. He knows the other measurements to which he has grown accustomed. It will be extremely difficult for him to switch over as suddenly as this to measurements which are alien to him.
Clause 9 gives the Minister power to authorise officials—I shall not use the word "minions", which my hon. Friend used—to enter a farm and destroy animals, albeit wild animals, without the farmer's permission and without even telling him beforehand what they plan to do—they can just walk on to his land and destroy these animals. Perhaps the officials will be courteous enough to knock on his door or telephone him beforehand. I should like to assume that they will do so. However, we ought not to reckon on that assumption. It seems appalling that we should hand over such power, and not to the Minister in this case, but to officials. If we are going to start destroying animals, at least there should be some consultation with those who own them and would normally look after them and have some regard for them.
I gather that when the Bill goes into Committee Clauses 11 and 12 will be criticised for not facilitating the transfer of tenancies from father to son. I hope that the Minister will pay heed to that criticism, because he is himself a large landlord. When the Minister was occupying his present position in the 1966–70 Parliament, I tabled a Question asking how many tenants he had in my constituency. The answer was just over 1,000. I understand that it is substantially fewer than that now, but the Minister remains an absentee landlord and he may not know how strict are the rules that he imposes as a landlord.
I should like to give one example, to which reference may be made again in Committee, to show what happens when the State is the landlord. Last June, one of my constituents, a tenant of the right hon. Gentleman, died. His holding having been managed for about 12 years by his son, his son naturally wanted to know what would be his future and what was to be his home, for himself and his widowed mother. The Ministry was unable to give an answer. I understand to this day that they are in a state of some uncertainty whether they will continue, because a new tenancy will be conferred upon someone from September 1976. At some point the son's application, along with others that may be received, will be considered by some committee to decide who should be the

tenant of this holding. For months, therefore, a family is to be kept in suspense in relation to the question whether they are to have a home or a livelihood.
We have heard something of the wickedness of landlords in Wales and elsewhere, but I should have thought that no private landlord would keep a family in suspense like that. I am not suggesting that the Minister or his officials are acting disreputably. However, they have hard and fast rules which operate harshly in such cases. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will pay great heed to the possible criticisms of the clauses concerned.
Clause 15 is another example of what seem to be authoritarian powers. When I first saw that it was concerned with the recovery of grant I thought that it could be only an unalloyed good, because I am against the principle of giving grants to anyone. I thought that to recover them might be wise. However, the phrase in the clause is
if it appears to him"—
meaning the Minister—that some false information had been given which had been the foundation of the making of the grant.
I should like to ask a few questions of the right hon. Gentleman. Is there any precedent for that phraseology? Is it not very arbitrary? Perhaps I have misunderstood the clause, but as I understand it, it means that if the Minister is under the impression—if it appears to him—that he has given money to a farmer as a result of false information, he can get the money back. Is it not entirely contrary to the rules of natural justice for the decision to rest entirely with the Minister? Is there not a perfectly good crime, known to every lawyer, called "obtaining money by false pretences"? A grant is money. If a farmer has sought a grant and has submitted false information, that amounts to false pretences, and that charge should be invoked. It seems quite abhorrent that such a clause should be inserted in the Bill.
Perhaps I may return to Clause 2. It is not an example of authoritarianism, but it is something which some of us will regret. I appreciate the fact that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation has done great work and helped many farmers. But the hon. Member for


Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) was right when he said that as matters now stand the larger farmer who is already established is the one who is likely to gain the most out of any grant or loan needed from the AMC.
However, what we are now doing is enabling the Minister to hand over to the AMC another £13 million which can be lent to farmers. I suppose that £13 million is merely a bagatelle when one considers a net borrowing requirement of about £12,000 million. However, the fact is that there is to be no action on the part of the Government to raise this sum by taxation. It will be another item of so-called borrowed money on the part of the Government. We are all familiar with the phrase "printing money". That is what will happen here. The Government will resort to this device to hand this money over to the AMC, which, in turn, will lend it to the more fortunate farmers at a favourable rate of interest which other farmers, certainly newcomers, may not be able to secure in the ordinary way. In other words, we are resorting to subsidised credit. It would be rather more honest if we called it subsidised credit rather than using the terms we have used.
I believe that to succeed in farming one needs just two things, as one does in almost every kind of business venture—cash and skill. The difference with farming is that if one has a deficiency of the one, one can very often make up for it with a surfeit of the other. However, I do not believe that a deficiency in either cash or skill in farming should be made good by the Government or any of their agencies. The Bill tries to do just that. For that reason it will be unlikely to do much to help agriculture, and for that reason I echo the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland—that the Bill is, indeed, a poor thing.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: The Minister of State may know that I wish to speak about Clause 5 as I have spoken on previous occasions about hops.
My constituency is in the Garden of England. There are many who consider that the county of Kent gets that title from hop-growing rather than anything else—although my hon. Friend the

Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) may dispute that.
I am concerned about what is proposed in relation to hops. The Press release issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and dated 21st November describes, in the note for editors, what is intended by Clause 5 of this legislation in regard to hops. There is an interesting description—in case no one knew of this and presumably because editors might not know of it—of seedless hops being produced from unpollinated female plants. One could also say that this clause is a clause for the protection of virgin female hops.
Before going into that matter, however, we ought to consider what is really intended, because we are talking not about what is intended for the growers or what is satisfactory for the brewers. Perhaps we ought to consider what the beer drinkers of this country would like. They, the consumers, are not even considered. There is no mention of them in the Bill. Perhaps the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection has been made aware of this. If not, I am sure that the Minister will be made aware of it by those sturdy characters of this country who like to drink beer that is made from male hops.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) says that it is not exactly a matter of the surgeon's knife here. However, the surgeon's knife is certainly to be used in relation to male hops in Kent at present. I do not wish to be facetious about it. I should like to quote a passage from the Ministry's Press release of 21st November which contains some very instructive advice to editors. Paragraph 6 states:
Hops are used to impart the bitter flavour to beer. They can be seeded or seedless, seedless hops being produced from unpollinated female plants. The United Kingdom is almost alone in not growing seedless hops, to which the international hop market is effectively restricted by commercial preference.
That passage assumes that the British market is to move over to cater for the international preference.
I shall not speak long, but I should like to ask the Minister to let us know tonight what is intended for Britain. Are we to move over to an international rationalisation of the beer we drink in this country? Because there is a continental preference for a type of beer made


from seedless hops, will we have to have that variety in this country? Is that what is being wished on us, and especially the farmers, by Parliament?
I understand that a grower in a designated area is to have no choice. He will not be able to say that he wants to continue growing his male hops because a certain brewery in his county likes their particular flavour. Indeed, I must emphasise that I have been assured that there is a difference in flavour. I have been assured by many hop growers in my constituency that there is a considerable difference. Is such a grower to be denied the opportunity to say to the Ministry that he wishes to continue to grow male hops and that he ought not to be stopped on the grounds that his hops might be dangerous to the female unpollinated hops in the hop garden next door? That is what the provisions of the Bill indicate.
Unless we have an explanation, it may be that a hop grower will be denied his market with a traditional brewer because the Ministry is anxious to allow the Hop Marketing Board to continue these experiments to develop the seedless hop in this country and so satisfy international demands by international brewers.
I know that the big brewers in this country are very interested in the seedless hop because it is an international development. We are now in the Common Market and in a Community of nine nations. If we want to export to Europe, we must recognise that those other nations do not want our male hops but want a seedless hop. Therefore, it is quite understandable that the British brewers and the Hop Marketing Board are concerned to ensure that the hops they market can be sold not only in Britain to the traditional British brewers, but presumably to Copenhagen, Germany and elsewhere. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate, will he tell us just what is at stake?
I am glad to see that the Minister has returned, because I am talking about beer and male, female, sexless and seedless hops, as well as a difference in flavour. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us when he replies to the debate that we are talking about an experiment and not just a step towards eliminating the traditional British beer in this country? I am not saying

that we should not undertake the experiments. I recognise that there is undoubtedly a demand for seedless hops abroad. However, I am advised that there is world overproduction of hops and that the hop market generally is depressed. Therefore, if we are to move into seedless hops we would end up by producing—I am not an expert in the matter—simply a duplication of continental beer in this country. I may be wrong. Will the Minister give me an assurance that I am wrong in making that assumption?

Mr. Peart: As one who likes a glass of beer, as indeed we all do, may I simply say that this is not an experiment but a commercial proposition. We need to compete, but at the same time we must certainly protect a different brew. I accept that.

Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the Minister, but I am concerned to hear him say that this is not an experiment but a step towards a wholesale change in this country.

Mr. Peart: No.

Mr. Crouch: That is helpful, but I shall revert to what the clause actually requires. It requires that where these steps are taken there must be the complete elimination of the dangerous male hops in case they pollinate the seedless female hops. If the Ministry is satisfied that that is a good step to take, it must give hop growers an assurance that by going into the production of seedless hops they will not be entering a limited market. Perhaps when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will be able to tell us whether the beer which comes from seedless hops will have a different flavour. The Minister has said that these provisions are a partial move towards changing hop-growing in this country.
Only this morning I was talking to my constituents about fruit and apple growing. I was inquiring about a new type of apple called "Suntan" which is being developed by the Ministry at East Mailing. One of my co-operatives in Canterbury expressed the view that it was all very well for the Ministry to say what is a good apple, but it is the consumer who eventually decides by the amount he purchases.

Mr. John Wells: I hope that my hon. Friend will correct his words. The research work undertaken at


East Mailing is not undertaken by the Ministry.

Mr. Crouch: I stand corrected. My hon. Friend is quite right.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: I should like to reassure my hon. Friend. The Minister has my entire support on Clause 5, and this is a matter in which I have an interest. The experiments are limited to isolated areas within Hampshire. Regulations of this type are already in existence in, for example, Germany and Belgium. I do not think my hon. Friend need lie awake too much at night about them.

Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton). I know of his interest in this matter. Indeed, he has great knowledge of the marketing of hops. He has assured us that these experiments are being conducted on a series of hop gardens in Hampshire and are confined to those areas. However, the hop growers in my constituency are concerned about the Government's intention. I ask the Minister simply to make it clear how wide the Government's intention is and how far they intend to go. The hop grower wants to know whether he will have a satisfactory market for whichever hop he grows, whether he grows the traditional male hop to make the traditional English beer or whether he is required to stop growing that hop because it might cause pollination on a farm next door.
I live in Kent, but my comments could easily apply to a hop grower in Hampshire or West Sussex who might be in a designated area. If so, he would be deprived of growing the traditional hop for the traditional market only to find himself being forced to grow the new variety. The hop grower wants to be sure that the new hop will have a market which will satisfy his efforts and his investment.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: All hon. Members who are interested in the provisions of Clause 5 will be reassured by the brief intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton). We all know of his special knowledge of this matter and we are extremely grateful to him. He said, in effect, that these experiments were to be limited, and were for a limited experimental purpose.

Lamentably, he was not in his seat a few minutes earlier when the Secretary of State, from his great ministerial position, said precisely the opposite. He said that this was not an experiment. I know that my hon. Friend knows all about this matter, and I suspect that the Minister does not, but in the world of agriculture, at least, for a few short months ahead, the Minister is a grander chap than is my hon. Friend.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: In fact, I was present and I heard every word of the Minister's speech, as well as most of what was said from the Opposition Front Bench. May I put it again to my hon. Friend, in this way? The basic underlying reason for this measure is to improve the export potential of British hops, and there is nothing else to it.

Mr. Wells: I appreciate that my hon. Friend heard the Minister's speech, but I do not think that he heard his intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). The Minister intervened at that point to say the very opposite. [Interruption.] With respect, the Minister said that this is not an experiment. If it is not an experiment, let us be clear about it. We must examine it a little further.

Mr. Crouch: Mr. Crouch rose—

Mr. Wells: I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me. I want to be brief. One of my anxieties is that we are setting up these experiments in order to make ourselves competitive in the hop market of the world. I understand that, but it might be a great deal better if the other hop growers of Europe took a leaf out of the British book and set up their counterpart of the British Hop Marketing Board, which, in fact, restricts overproduction. It was one of the few lasting benefits of Ramsay MacDonald's Government that the Hop Marketing Board was set up. It is, therefore, a real benefit which has out-lasted other Socialist non-benefits. I believe that if, when he next went to Brussels, the Minister explained the benefits of the British Hop Marketing Board and persuaded the Germans, for example, to put their house in order, we could proceed far more efficaciously.
I do not object to a small experiment, especially if it is in Hampshire, but I should be worried if there were a large scale compulsory designation of areas,


especially in Kent. In the Chamber we talk glibly about the eradication of male hops as though it were no more than the pulling up of a nettle or the squirting of a bit of poison. I assure the House that the eradication of the hop is very different from that. It is a long and deep-rooted plant. Just going out with a fork will not grub it up. A man has to get in a JCB digger or the like—[Interruption.] This is fact. The grubbing up of a hop garden requires the use of a JCB digger or a similar tool, which today may cost £4·50, £5 or £5·50 an hour, depending on where one is; and the cost of such operations is constantly mounting.
I am, therefore, still a little worried by the Minister's contradiction of the suggestion that it is an experiment. I hope that the matter will be spelled out in the closing Government speech, and I hope also that when the right hon. Gentleman next discusses hops in Brussels he will draw to the attention of the Commission the excellence of the British system.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: In his opening speech the Minister admitted that the Bill was not as important as some other miscellaneous provisions Bills from his Department, and I am bound to say—in the words of my favourite disc jockey—that that does not put it very high up the charts. I am not sure why it is only the Ministry of Agriculture which blesses this House with miscellaneous provisions Bills. Perhaps it is its complexity and its diverse nature which gives agriculture that special privilege. On the other hand, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, who is so well known for his moderate views and his important influence in the Cabinet, has decided that the occasion has come to take a little parliamentary time for something more rational than the doctrinaire legislation which his right hon. and hon. Friends poured upon us last Session, and this is his contribution to the fight against the Left wing of the Labour Party.
A study of the Bill soon shows that it is really a subject for Committee work, not altogether suited for a lengthy Second Reading debate. However, it is fair to say that there is nothng in it of financial benefit to the farmer, and nothing in it of great immediate benefit to farmers at

a time when they need considerable assistance from the Government.
I must declare my interest as a tenant farmer and also as a director of the sugar refiners Manbre Sugars. That leads me conveniently to Clause 1, since the two cane refiners were the principal customers of the Sugar Board in its capacity as administrator of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. This matter has been debated in the House fairly recently, and I see no reason to go into it at length, save to say that I regard the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement as one of the better deals, if I may so put it, which this country has done—beneficial both to the consumer and, in particular, to the growing countries. I am glad that the Lomé Convention, as and when it is put into full operation by the Common Market, will to some extent assist the Third World countries, especially those which depend on the monoculture of sugar cane for their livelihood.
I believe that the Government have accepted—I hope that we shall have confirmation of this fairly soon—that for strategic, industrial and other reasons it is necessary to have a mix of cane sugar and beet sugar in our refineries. In view of my interest, I should prefer not to say any more now. It will be debated in Committee, since there clearly will have to be a fairly full discussion of the sugar industry at an early stage.
The Sugar Board was responsible also for the holding of the British Sugar Corporation's shares and the administration of the contract, and these matters are, perhaps, more in the news. I do not believe that the contract has often had to be referred to the Minister for arbitration, and it is regrettable that this was a year in which that took place. Naturally, we on this side have been and remain concerned about the state of the sugar beet industry, especially from the growers' point of view. Although I fully acknowledge that the weather has played a substantial part in what has happened, It is a serious consideration that, at a time when we are about to face the full rigours of competition from Holland, Belgium and Germany in beet sugar raws, the whole industry in this country ought to be strengthened.
As I read the Bill, the British Sugar Corporation's shares will be vested in the Minister—that will be their home—but


he will not have the power to do anything with them without the consent of the Treasury. I am no expert in these matters, but I hope that those shares will not necessarily be treated as especially different from other Government holdings of a similar nature. The Government can rest assured that we shall go into the question in Committee to ensure that nothing is done which might disadvantage the British Sugar Corporation in the matter.
It would be right at this point to say that the Sugar Board has done a good job. I pay tribute to the work which it has done so competently and efficiently although I suppose that it is a matter for contemplation that a board employing a mere 20 people should cost £200,000 a year to run. I am not criticising that figure; I am merely drawing it to the attention of the House, since all of us are anxious today about Government expenditure.
We have had several comments about Clause 2 and the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman said that it would now be possible for the AMC to lend as much as £300 million for the purchase of land. I entirely take the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) that to have to borrow all the money required to buy land today must preclude from going into farming anyone who does not already own some capital. I disagree diametrically with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion on that problem, but I ask the House to consider whether there is any other industry in which it could be said that there should be a pre-emptive right to come in without any other capital contribution.
The hon. Lady the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), whom I am sorry not to see in her seat, made a fairly fundamental error in her assessment of the AMC when she said that the AMC was the home for those who could not borrow the money from the banks. It is, in fact, exactly the opposite. Anyone who has tried to borrow money from the banks for farm land will confirm that they will not lend long term. It is for this reason that the AMC was set up, and for the same reason we should

wish to see the AMC continue, although I take the point made by one or two of my hon. Friends about the question of credit, of printing money and our concern to curtail Government expenditure.
The scheme that the AMC has suggested for attempting to channel some private funds from the equity market into agriculture will, no doubt, be debated in Standing Committee. It is easy to talk in general terms of these matters. It is not so easy to carry them out. If the Government are giving thought to helping the AMC in this respect I hope we shall have a word from the Minister about it.
My hon. Friend said he thought that the problems created by over-borrowing may to some extent be over for the AMC. That may be the view of the AMC. I only hope that it does not get caught by surprise. I am not clear how far the AMC can monitor the businesses of those to whom it lends money. It will not surprise me if the credit problems which have reared their heads in the past 18 months do not continue to do so if the general economic situation carries on in the present way.
Mention has been made of capital transfer tax. I had the task of putting the Opposition's case on it on the appropriate Finance Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who has made it clear, certainly by innuendo, and in private, I suspect, that he is concerned about the level of capital taxation, will continue—

Mr. Peart: I have not said it privately. The hon. Member will know that I once said it on Border Television publicly. I am concerned. I would not wish to have fragmentation.

Mr. Wiggin: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has been his normal open self in this matter, but I urge him to consider the appreciation that the industry is now taking of the effects of this tax. At the time, we made it clear that it would be a year or two before individual farmers could say how it would be likely to affect their own businesses and land holdings. This realisation is coming into the industry. It is doing nothing for confidence. In this matter of borrowing money for the purchase of land, this is surely relevant.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) raised the interesting question of subsidised credit. I believe that we shall have a debate on this in the future, not necessarily on this Bill, but it is a matter to which we shall have to give considerable thought. It is true that we have capital grants which those countries which have subsidised credits do not enjoy. There is still a substantial body of opinion—the CLA included—that thinks capital grants are a better form of assistance than subsidised credits. This is something which we should consider as the circumstances and requirements alter.
At a time when the minimum wage has been raised so sharply it is difficult to talk about extra money above the minimum wage for those who have passed proficiency tests. It has been my experience that very few farm workers have been paid the minimum wage for a very long time. Within my own personal experience, I know that those who achieved technical efficiency above the average were always rewarded voluntarily by the farmers concerned. But since the sum is so small, I do not think this is something about which we should concern ourselves too deeply.
The debate on seedless hops has been pursued with vigour by those who are interested in the matter. I believe there are two questions which should be put to the Minister. Is there likely to be a valid market for the seedless hop? I understand—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton) will, no doubt, interrupt me if I am wrong—that there is a surplus of hops in Europe owing to excess production in Germany. I hope we shall not spend large sums of money and go into a market which has already overproduced. That clearly would be fruitless.
There is another matter of the seeded grower who has invested large sums in his yards and who, through geographical considerations, may find himself in an area where seedless hops should be grown. Alternatively there is the greater danger, which has been mentioned, that, because of this factor, yards will be put up to grow seedless hops, making redundant large investments in Kent and Worcestershire. This is not quite the unimportant or amusing matter which it may appear to be. It requires careful thought.
I hope we shall be given some reason for the introduction of Clause 6 and the extra powers required for obtaining statistics and why this is to be a costless and manpowerless requirement. If to the bureaucracy it is to be no extra burden, it certainly will be to the farmer. We are all becoming increasingly conscious of the necessity to simplify forms and information gathering.
This leads me straight to the question of metrication, which fills me with great horror. Clearly, the industry has accepted this, but there is no doubt that trying to convert pounds to kilos and acres to hectares can be difficult. It is time that the Government produced an overall policy on metrication. I do not follow the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). I can see some merit in dealing with this matter in one fell swoop. The Metrication Board has looked into all the alternatives. What will create difficulty is if one area of industry is metricated and another is not. Wood sold in metric lengths causes difficulty in the farming industry, and similar difficulties arise with the metric threads in machinery, and so on. I hope the Government will face the facts and come out with an overall national policy.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), who was concerned about weighbridges, I can say, having had some family connection with the firm of Avery, that it is a simple matter to put a new dial on weighing machines. During the period when many firms went metric there were no problems, and I hope there will not be any in livestock marketing.
The thorny Clauses 11 to 14 which have so far caused the maximum interest in the debate are provisions to which it is right that the House should give serious attention. It is fair to ask the Government to be more specific about the precedent and the reasons for bringing in these clauses. We have heard a good deal about one case in South-East Wales, and even a television programme has been mentioned in this context. I understand that a writ has been issued against the BBC following the production of that programme and, therefore, I would rather not become involved in this dispute, except to say that I believe there are grounds for thinking that the legal procedures still available were not pursued


by all parties, and that to condemn the whole system for this reason is both unfair and not worthy of this House.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) made some quite disgraceful allegations against arbitrators. I have known a good many of these people, and I am aware of the agonies they suffer to see that they administer British justice as any magistrate or anybody else appointed to that position of trust must do. It is a considerable benefit to this nation that so many people are prepared to give up much of their time for not particularly handsome remuneration to see that these matters, which are, in effect, disputes over a private contract, can be resolved in a civilised manner within the law. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) repeated those remarks. Those of us who have lived and worked in agriculture for any time trust arbitrators. Occasionally we lose or do not agree with them, but that is no reason for condemning them or their motives.
The purpose of the Clause 11 is to give arbitrators the ability to modify a notice to remedy. It gives the arbitrator some rights to alter the original contract. We shall have to look at this matter very carefully. However, we do not condemn the clause for that reason. In many cases it is rational and reasonable for the arbitrator, who until now has only had the power to accept or reject a particular item in a notice, to be able to use his discretion. Of course, this will be imposing an additional burden on arbitrators, but it is a reasonable burden. I am fortunate in having as a constituent a lawyer who is rewriting the book on this matter and who assures me that he has attended more arbitrations than anyone else over a period of time. I hope to have some informed advice during the Committee stage.
Clause 12 is unnecessary. It is a lawyer's bonanza. It says: "Do not take too much notice of arbitration. Let us go to the agricultural land tribunal." I question the wisdom of this clause. I think the Government will find my view upheld as advice comes in from the professional bodies on this matter. I urge them to think again about the inclusion of Clause 12.
The thorny subject of heritable tenancies has been mentioned. As a tenant

farmer I have always stoutly defended this system. It gave me an opportunity to farm which I would not otherwise have had and has also created a system of land holdings and size of holdings which is the envy of Europe. Anything we do which materially weakens the system will be immensely damaging to the interests of British agriculture. We would not resist a debate on this matter, but such an important step should only be taken after much more inquiry and with much more evidence than just that from Scotland. I did not think the system works to the benefit of the tenant or the landowner in Scotland.
Interested parties should have the opportunity to present their views to the Minister before any decision is taken. It is easy to allow emotion to carry us away. I understand the ease with which people can put the case of the poor tenant, but they seem very reluctant to put the case of the poor landowner, who may often have as his only asset a tenanted farm which he has been deprived of for the life of a tenant. It is not unreasonable that we should consider all aspects of this excellent system, which has worked better here than anywhere else in the world.
By some tortuous route, the Prime Minister discovered last week that the problems of the country are caused by the lack of a vigorous Opposition. I was surprised by that. He could not have been thinking of agriculture, because we shall be pursuing our opposition with great vigour in Committee.

7.55 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): We have had a useful debate and the wide-ranging measures in the Bill have enabled hon. Members to cover a good deal of ground. In general, the Bill has been welcomed, albeit grudgingly by some hon. Members.
I shall deal as fully as I can with a number of the points raised. I shall work through the Bill, starting with Clause 1, which provides for the dissolution of the Sugar Board. It has completed the tasks for which it was created, and the additional administrative functions that it is currently handling are expected to end in 1976. No work is


foreseen which would require its continued existence. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) asked about the future of the Sugar Equalisation Scheme when the Board was wound up. We envisage that the scheme will end in about the spring of next year. In the unlikely event of such a scheme being needed in the future, it could be operated without legislation on a voluntary basis and could be administered by my Ministry's officials. There has been no suggestion that we should not wind up the Sugar Board and save the cost of maintaining it.
Clause 2 is an important part of the Bill and is aimed at ensuring that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation can continue its function of raising money on the market and relending on mortgage to farmers. The Corporation was set up in 1928 under the Companies Act, and of its eight directors one is nominated by the Treasury and two by the Ministry of Agriculture. It depends on Government financial support through Government advances to its guarantee fund to back its borrowing on the market.
A number of hon. Members have asked about interest rates. The basis of the Corporation's operation is that the Government provide advances and this enables the Corporation to borrow a great deal more money on the market for re-lending to farmers. The question of subsidised interest rates is a separate one, which must be seen in relation to the capital grants scheme. That is what the common agricultural policy requires. The level at which we are able to pay capital grants is influenced by the level of subsidy—if we provide one—of interest rates to farmers. The fact that we are in the European Economic Community does not give us the flexibility to introduce subsidised interest rates if we wish to keep capital grants, as some hon. Members believe we should. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) spoke about cheap credit provided in Europe. That is the way in which the French and others choose to help their agricultural industry. If we were to adopt that system it would have implications for our grants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard)

raised the question of a land bank. She was referring to the question of short-term lending. This is an interesting suggestion, and one that we can consider, but I think that my hon. Friend will agree that, basically, there is no evidence that if farmers are viable and have a successful business, banks are unwilling to lend to them. I am sure that there would be no disagreement between hon. Members that the key need is for the Government to ensure, as far as they are able, that farmers are efficient, because when they are their approaches to banks are likely to be sympathetically received in most circumstances.
Reference was made to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) took the opportunity once again to float his ideas about the purchase of land, and he made a compelling case when he outlined the whole question of the advantages to farming of having a system which enabled tenants to come in. The Government nave no plans in this direction, though one might argue whether one would use the AMC to carry out such a function were the Government contemplating it.
I turn next to the question of the co-ownership proposals which the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation has put before the Government and which are widely known. I think we must be clear that these proposals do not relate to Clause 2. They are intended to offer a means to the owners of agricultural land to realise part of the capital value of the land for other purposes. The proposals are under consideration by the Ministry, but I am advised that legislation would not be needed to enable the Corporation to proceed with the proposals in their present form. The question of legislation under the Bill does not, therefore, arise.
In passing, I might mention to the hon. Member for Westmorland, who raised this point, that there is nothing to stop any group of people from getting together and seeking to set up the trust which the AMC is proposing and facilitating the flow of City money—money from pension funds and insurance companies—into agricultural land.
It can be forcefully argued that the AMC has a particular expertise in this


area and there is, therefore, a case for its doing the job, but we have to bear in mind that the Corporation has a certain Government backing. It has a certain blue chip standing in relation to lending money. That is something that private institutions do not have, and if we were to set up a trust and transfer the AMC and its blue chip standing to it we should have to be very careful and think out fully the implications in relation to the demands that might be put on my right hon. Friend or his successors if this purely private venture were to run into difficulties. This is not as clear-cut a set of proposals as some people in the industry think, and it is therefore right and proper that my right hon. Friend should want to consider it carefully.
Clause 3 provides for the new arrangements whereby the Meat and Livestock Commission will confer directly with representative organisations instead of with standing production and distribution committees. I know that organisations within the industry will be particularly pleased to learn that the Commission intends to include in the new arrangements an annual presentation of its budget, so that the industry has an opportunity to express its views about the balance and direction of the Commission's expenditure. I should add that, apart from fulfilling its statutory obligations, the Commission intends to retain various non-statutory technical sub-committees to enable it to obtain the benefit of the industry's advice on matters of specialist and regional concern.
The hon. Member for Westmorland asked whether we were keping the consumers committee because the Government felt that there were no consumer organisations which the MLC could consult. There is no question of this. The MLC takes the view, as do most people who take an interest in these matters that the consumers committee is working well, and if it is working well we should not seek to abolish it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brightside asked whether the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers would be one of the organisations consulted by the MLC. It is my right hon. Friend who will prescribe, by Statutory Instrument, which organisations the MLC has to consult, and I assure hon. Members that the Government will want that list of

organisations to be a sensible one, which does justice to the industry. I assure my hon. Friend that the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers will be consulted by the MLC on issues with which it is concerned, and obviously it has an interest in producing meat and other agricultural commodities.
Clause 5 will enable the Government to help those growers who wish to meet the demand for seedless hops by providing the power to designate areas. The designation orders through which the powers will be implemented will be prepared after consultation with those most concerned and will be subject to the negative resolution procedure of either House.
We must be clear that we are talking about a voluntary arrangement with the industry. There is no question of anyone imposing this measure on the industry. This has been asked for by the hop producers. The brewers want seedless hops, and we shall seek to ensure that the areas that are designated are those in which the vast majority of hop growers want this change. Hon. Members will have the right to raise the matter when we designate these areas under the normal parliamentary procedure.
If I may now deal briefly with the clause relating to statistical information, I think that I should point out to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) that what we are doing is making sure that the information that we are already collecting is being collected with full statutory backing. There is a suggestion that one or two of the questions may be ultra vires. There is no question of this provision leading to a new and complicated form. I think the hon. Gentleman recognised that it is important that we should obtain adequate information about the industry and about land use in agriculture, and, quite rightly, some hon. Members on the Government Benches have drawn attention to the importance of that.
I come next to Clause 7, which deals with metrication. The main point is that there is no question that we need this legislation to use metric figures in the Annual Review White Paper. It is the intention to use metric figures in the White Paper, but we shall also use imperial equivalents, and I suspect that hon. Members such as myself will hope that the Government will for many years


use both metric and imperial figures in their Annual Reviews.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-west (Mr. Hawkins) raised the question of cattle markets. This is a matter that we shall probably want to discuss in Committee. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we are debating something for which the industry has asked and are facilitating the changes that have to be made in legislation as a result of implementing metrication throughout the industry.
Clause 8 deals with the export of animals. The House welcomes this clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) gave a special welcome. It provides for a further tightening up of the Regulations on the export of livestock. Here we are obtaining statutory powers for what we have been doing for some considerable time. We regard it as imperative that when livestock are exported to Community or other countries with satisfactory arrangements we should know in advance the precise destination, so that we can communicate with the receiving country to ensure that the authorities will look out for the consignment of livestock and be able to monitor and minimise, if not eliminate completely, any hardship on the animals. I may say that the French authorities are co-operating extremely well with the Government on these matters.
Clauses 9 and 10 deal with the destruction of wild life. I point out simply that the powers are restricted to the important diseases scheduled under the Diseases of Animals Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham asked about salmonellosis. I confirm that it is not included. It also means that fish diseases are not included. I might mention that we have these powers for rabies, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, but we do not have them, for example, for foot-and-mouth disease. Obviously there are instances—the case of badgers which have tuberculosis is one in which we have been able to take action under legislation enacted last Session—where there is a need for this, and obviously we shall look at the powers of entry. But I should be surprised if, in Committee, hon. Members did not accept that the Government have to take these powers

if we are to be able to move in quickly in cases in which wildlife is clearly the source or the agent transmitting an important and serious disease.
I move to the clauses dealing with harassment, which, not surprisingly, have aroused a great deal of comment from both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor has been a very active and energetic campaigner in all these landlord-and-tenant matters, and I am glad to have his support for these measures. We shall look very carefully at all his points about their operation, and about the arbitration service.
Let me again remind the House of our proposals. We face a situation in which a number of landlords in England and Wales, mainly isolated cases, appear to have been misusing the law to force their tenants off their holdings. The tenants have complained that their landlords have made unfair and unreasonable use of the statutory procedures relating to the carrying out of work of maintenance, repair or replacement. This must be stopped. After consultation with the NFU and the CLA, we have chosen what we consider to be the two most effective remedies. Some hon. Members have suggested that we are not going about this in the right way. If they have better ways that they can put to us in Committee, we shall consider them.
I was amazed at the equivocation of the Opposition. Both the hon. Member for Westmorland and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said that there had not been a sufficient number of cases to justify action of this kind. My right hon. Friend made it clear that in his opinion one tenant unfairly evicted was one too many. In fact, there are many more cases than one. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor has followed these matters very closely, and I know that, in Committee, if necessary, he will be able to provide plenty of examples of this misuse of the law by landlords.
It is incredible that we should have this kind of equivocation. I have always believed that, basically, the Labour Party was the party of the farmers, whereas the Conservative Party was the party of the landlords. I do not think there can be any doubt that anyone reading this debate


will see that wherever there is a clash of interests between the farmers and the landlords he can rest assured that the Conservative Party will come down on the side of the landlords—[Interruption.] I hear a number of Opposition Members saying that that is not true. Let me read from the brief of the NFU. It says, about harassment:
The union welcomes the provisions contained in Clauses 11 and 12 in the Bill which will give some necessary strengthening of tenant farmers' security of tenure in relation to statutory notices to do work served by agricultural landlords.
All fair-minded people will appreciate that this is a necessary change in the legislation. We are determined to see that it is enacted.
Let me pick up one point that has been made about Clause 12. It is true that harassment, when it occurs, has been taking place through the misuse or abuse of the notice to do work procedure and that Clause 11 should rectify this by extending the powers of the arbitrator, but the root cause of harassment is the fact that a notice to quite founded on failure to comply with a notice to do work can, at present, be contested only before an arbitrator, and the arbitrator can refuse his consent only in limited circumstances. That is the point which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has not grasped.
By making the notice to quit referrable to the Agricultural Land Tribunal, Clause 12 makes it more difficult for the landlord to gain possession of the holding. In these matters the tribunal is to be given a much wider discretion than the arbitrator by the exercise of the "fair and reasonable landlord" test set out in subsection (4). The Government are determined to see that this loophole in the legislation is filled properly, once and for all. That is why we are using Clause 12 in addition to ensure that we achieve our objective.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman will recall that during the debate his hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) made certain remarks about arbitrators—remarks that caused a great deal of offence in all parts of the House. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say what is the Government's attitude to remarks of that kind? Among the large group of people who conduct

these arbitrations I am sure that it will be felt only right for the Government to clarify their position. Will the hon. Gentleman add his support to that group of arbitrators and repudiate what the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor said?

Mr. Roderick: Before my hon. Friend deals with that intervention, may I emphasise that my point was that, on the whole, tenant farmers lacked confidence in the arbriation machinery largely because the arbitrators were themselves involved in land transactions?

Mr. Strang: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor has clarified his remarks now. Of course, we value the work of the arbitrators and, of course, my Ministry regards them as independent arbitrators. When we cease to regard them as independent we shall take action to change the situation.
I turn now to an issue that is not dealt with in the Bill but has, not to my surprise, been raised by a number of hon. Members—the problem of family succession. Many hon. Members have expressed regret that there is no provision in the Bill for the succession to a tenancy by a close relative of a deceased tenant, on the Scottish pattern. It is no secret that in opposition I took a strong line on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham pointed out that there is a reference to it in "Labour's Programme for 1973", but he will see that it is not a commitment to make a change; it is an undertaking to consider the issue. I am not nit-picking. I am not saying whether we shall or shall not introduce a new clause; I am merely making the point that the document did not come down unequivocally on the side of changing the legislation.
A number of hon. Members, particularly those on the Opposition Front Bench, have not addressed themselves to the gut issue here. What we are talking about—not just my hon. Friends, but the Liberal and Welsh National Party spokesmen—is the situation that arises on the death of the tenant of a farm in England and Wales—a farm that has, perhaps, been tenanted for generations by his family—when his son finds that he can be evicted by the landlord even though he has been working on the farm


for many years, and is probably middle-aged. That is a cause of hardship. I was glad that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West referred to a case of which he had close knowledge and which he thought was most unfortunate.
The question raises a number of issues. For example, if we were to make such a change, should we do it in the same way as in Scotland? There are arguments for doing it somewhat differently. There is a case for saying that if we make the change it must be properly qualified.
The NFU has come out strongly in favour of the change. Notwithstanding its brief, it did not take such a strong line on the matter in England and Wales the last time it was considered by a Labour Government. The NFU says, in its brief:
It is, however, regretted that the Government has not—so far at any rate—taken the opportunity of including in this Bill provisions to afford to the sons and near relatives of tenant fanners in England and Wales a comparable right to that already existing in Scotland to seek to succeed to the tenancy on the death of the tenant.
Many hon. Members have suggested—some have pressed very hard—that the Government should include a clause making this change. I pay special tribute to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), who had the courage to say unequivocally that he would welcome such a change. It was a courageous thing to do, given the attitude of his Front Bench colleagues.
Because of hon. Members' views and the views of the NFU, the Government have had consultations on the matter. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare does not know about them, because they have been mentioned in parliamentary answers. We have been having consultations with the CLA, the NFU and other interested organisations, such as the RICS. My right hon. Friend is giving careful consideration to the issue.
The Liberal spokesman said that we should do many other things in such a Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman was perhaps unaware of the enormous pressure on the parliamentary timetable. It was by cutting the Bill down to the minimum that we strengthened our case in arguing with our colleagues for introducing an Agriculture (Miscellaneous

Provisions) Bill at the beginning of the Session. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor has given notice that he will introduce a new clause in Committee if the Government do not. It is clear that if he does so he will have considerable support, which will extend beyond members of my own party. But I am glad to be able to assure the House that we will carefully consider introducing a new clause in Committee.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend profoundly for that assurance, and for all that he said about the matter.

Mr. Strang: I have stated some of the considerations. There are others, which Conservative Members will want to state in Committee. I can go no further than to say that we are considering the matter. There will be plenty of opportunity for discussion in Committee.
I believe that Clause 15, on the recovery of capital grants, is basically supported by the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham raised the question of the refund of FEOGA grants. The Bill refers specifically to schemes which are not FEOGA-financed. I prefer to write to my hon. Friend on the much more difficult and contentious point that he raised.
Perhaps we should not have been surprised that the hon. Member for Westmorland took the opportunity of a debate on an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provision) Bill to spread further gloom and to talk the industry down further. He makes a great mistake when he exaggerates the difficulties experienced in the industry. My right hon. Friend has just returned from Smithfield, where he spoke to many representatives of the industry. This morning I met a friend of mine, a Fife farmer, coming down to Smith-field by air. The attitude of the farmers at Smithfield—very sensible farmers, because it tends to be the better-off and more successful farmers who come to Smithfield—is in contrast to the exaggerated and wild statements made by the hon. Gentleman.
Of course, there is a problem in the dairy industry. We are committed to an expansion of milk production. Through the adjustments that we have made to the price, the Government have already demonstrated their commitment to securing an expansion of this sector.
I think that occasionally the hon. Gentleman might refer to commodities which are doing well. Perhaps, now and then, he could make a passing reference—to cereal crops, for example, or the Scottish potato crop.
In the past year we have seen a marked variation between the relative profitability of farms in different parts of the country. This has been a reflection of the weather. That is what hit the sugar beet performance of many farms in many parts of the country. The weather also hit the performance of many farms in other commodities.
My right hon. Friend has made clear where he stands on capital taxation. Surely I do not have to remind Conservative Members that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a special concession for farmers. That was the first indication of our determination to see that the tax did not lead to fragmentation, and did not damage the industry's confidence. Furthermore, we established an interdepartmental committee specifically to consider the issue. That is all public knowledge. My right hon. Friend is considering the matter, but it must be appreciated that when a Government want to secure a fair distribution of wealth they must be careful that in altering legislation to help the farming industry they do not do so in a way that means that a large amount of money will go into land by making it a tax haven, thus forcing up the price of agricultural land to artificial levels not in the interests of the agriculture industry and the vast majority of farmers.
When introducing the Bill my right hon. Friend said that it covered a wide and interesting range of measures. So it does. I have tried to help the House by giving a brief resumé of the Bill's contents and by trying to answer most of the questions that have been raised. I am sure that we shall have a number of interesting discussions in Committee. I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House as a useful measure which will play its part in the well-being of agriculture.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to dissolve the Sugar Board; to provide for increasing the amount which may be advanced under section 2 of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Act 1956; to provide for the making of grants in connection with proficiency tests in crafts related to agriculture; to authorise measures to restrict the growing of male hop plants; to make further provisions for preventing the transmission of disease from wild life to animals and poultry; and to amend section 29(4) of the Agriculture Act 1970, it is expedient to authorise—

(1)the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any Minister under any provisions of the said Act of the present Session and any increase attributable to any provision of that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act;
(2)the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase in the sums payable out of that fund under subsection (2) of section 2 of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Act 1956 which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session increasing or conferring power to increase the advances which may be made under subsection (1) of that section;
(3)the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Strang.]

FISHING VESSELS (GRANT)

8.32 p.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I beg to move,
That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) (No. 3) Scheme 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.
The purpose of the Scheme is to provide for payment of aid to the fishing industry for the final quarter of this year. It will be observed that the Scheme, covering the period October to December 1975 only, is number three in calendar sequence.
The year opened with the fleet in the grip of an adverse costs-to-earnings situation. Given the new pattern of costs, dominated by fuel and likely changes in


the future pattern of fishing, some alteration of the fleet was both inevitable and right. But the pace of change was gathering an unhealthy momentum which, if not arrested, could have led to permanent structural damage. It was decided, therefore, to give temporary aid, for six months only, to allow the industry—I use the term in the widest sense—time to adjust to the changed circumstances.
Subsequently it became apparent that adjustment was occurring more slowly than anticipated. The catching sector began to rationalise its operations, particularly by the removal from service of a number of old, high-cost vessels. However, prices at port auctions, which hold the key to economic and operational stability, had not recovered significantly from levels to which they had descended 12 months previously. The Government decided, therefore, that the circumstances justified continuation of aid.
On 29th July my right hon. Friend told the House that aid would be continued until, but only until, the end of the year. But, to ensure that resources were adapted to need, bearing in mind the changeable nature of the industry, the level of aid was fixed initially for the July to September quarter only, leaving the final period to be settled later.
The Scheme before us this evening is necessary to implement the arrangement announced by my right hon. Friend on 23rd October for the final quarter of the year. Hon. Members will be aware that the daily rates of aid applicable to all but the two smallest categories of vessel have been reduced. At the end of June this year earnings for the fleet as a whole were 15 per cent. down on the corresponding period last year. This was a material factor in the decision to continue the aid temporarily.
Bearing in mind the reductions which have occurred, particularly in the deep-sea sector, a reduction in overall earnings might be expected. Yet during the quarter ended 30th September earnings were 1·6 per cent. higher than the same quarter last year—and this with a smaller fleet. It implies a higher unit efficiency, and in that sense the industry can be seen to have used the breathing space afforded by the temporary aid to adjust operations to the changed circumstances. As there

are no apparent reasons why this recovery should not continue, we took the view that the reduced level of aid for the final quarter was consistent with the needs of the situation and the orderly phasing out of the temporary arrangements.
We have also reduced the number of qualifying days from 30 and 43 for inshore and deep-sea vessels to 20 and 30 respectively. This should be helpful in view of the interruption to fishing caused by the weather at this time.
For this final quarter we have set aside the sum of £1 million, being additional to the sums of £6¼ million for the first half of the year and £2¼ million for the third quarter.
It is quite misleading to take the final period in isolation. It is necessary, to get the matter in perspective, to look back at what we set out to do and balance the aid given over the year as a whole against the objective and the results achieved. Our aim has been to ensure that during a difficult time our fishing fleet is preserved in a situation where it will be ready to meet opportunities which arise.
As well as the temporary financial aid we are considering this evening, which benefits the sector catching about 90 per cent. of our white fish and herring, there is an extensive and continuous programme of help to the fishing industry. I emphasise this, because we must not forget the aids and facilities afforded to our industry. We have continued to make available grants towards the modernisation of the fleet. Only last month the House agreed to the extension for a further year of the vessel loan arrangements.
In addition, the United Kingdom Fisheries Departments provide substantial nation-wide support to the industry at ports and around our coasts, with fisheries enforcement and many other services.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Can my hon. Friend tell the House how many new vessels have been built or ordered as a result of the loan scheme?

Mr. Bishop: That is perhaps a matter which can be dealt with in the reply.
The United Kingdom Fisheries Departments provide substantial nation-wide support to the industry at ports and around our coasts with fisheries enforcement and


many other services, many of which the industry tends to take for granted most of the time. The Government provide financial aids for fishing harbour facilities. We also provide aid through the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board, and there are the valuable research facilities providing essential scientific and other help in the industry's fight for viability.
On the marketing side we have sought to protect returns. We have succeeded in persuading the Community to introduce for the first time reference prices for imports of frozen fish products which protect the whole Community market from undercutting by unduly low-priced third country imports. This protection is now a permanent feature of our market and our Community partners' markets. It is encouraging to note that stability is returning to the market. Prices are now showing response to market factors.
Quayside prices for the main species generally began to turn upwards by midsummer and have since shown steady improvement over those ruling in the corresponding period last year. Moreover, fish prices are influenced by the price of other protein sources which may be expected to rise next year.
I should like to make a simple comparison. In 1974 the value of fish landed by the United Kingdom fleet was £154 million. The cost of Government aid in the corresponding financial year was £22·6 million—a ratio of about seven to one. This year the value of the catch seems unlikely to exceed last year's figure, and may indeed fall some way below it, but the support provision has risen to approximately £35 million—a ratio of about four and a half to one. That factor should be borne in mind. These figures represent the clearest possible evidence that the Government not only care about the well-being of the fishing industry but, despite the financial problems entailed, have matched their concern with effective action.
There are a number of factors still to be resolved, but we think that the temporary financial aid we gave this year and the other support measures will enable the industry to make the best of the opportunities which will arise in future.
I have pleasure in commending the Scheme to the House.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: The Minister of State comes to the House congratulating himself on what the Government have done for the fishing industry. I only wish that what he said bore more realistically on what is happening in the industry. I do not share his optimistic feelings.
There is little on which one can congratulate the Government. I should have found the Minister's speech more convincing if he had faced the problems of the industry more realistically instead of merely cataloguing the assistance which has been given to the industry, which has been continuing for some time and will go on in the future. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, as we heard in debates upstairs, are concerned about the prospects for the industry. Although the Minister may have a light heart, I have a heavy heart because I do not share his optimism.
We welcomed the financial help which the Government gave to the industry at the beginning of this year. By giving that help, the Government acknowledged that the industry was going through special financial difficulties. I criticise the Government for their intention to terminate that help when the future economic prospects do not justify the gloss which the Minister put on them.
I have received letters from fishermen who have read our Committee debates. They refer to the platitudes uttered by the Government. They want to know when action will be taken by the Government to implement their good intentions.
I have not had a chance to express on the Floor of the House our deep concern at the way in which the Minister announced the Scheme. We debated the previous Scheme, which ended on 30th September, in Committee on 22nd October. We pressed the Minister to say what he proposed to do for the industry for the remainder of the year—and we were already in the remainder of the year. The fishermen had already been going to sea in the final quarter for 22 days without knowing what the subsidy was to be. The hon. Gentleman would


not answer. He said that he required more time. He told us:
It is not easy to give the situation within a week or so and we must therefore obtain returns from the industry to ascertain the situation."—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, 22nd October 1975; c. 33.]
Twenty-four hours later, away from the interrogation of hon. Members, the Minister announced what the Scheme would be.
What were the returns which the hon. Gentleman got in those 24 hours which enabled him to make that announcement? I suggest that he was afraid to tell hon. Members that the Government were to cut the subsidy scheme. I dislike having to say this, but he showed a certain contempt for the House in not being prepared to say in Committee what he was prepared to do for the industry. If he now says that certain crucial returns came to hand in the 24 hours after 22nd October, lack of which had hindered him from explaining to us on that day, I shall accept his word.

Mr. Bishop: I owe no apology to the hon. Gentleman or to the House. When we debated the subsidy for the third quarter in Committee, no decision had been made by the Ministry. The matter was still under consideration. We made it clear that we would not be able to decide the subsidy for the final quarter until the returns for the third quarter had been examined. That was the position. I had no decision to announce in Committee at that time on what the policy was to be. If I had, I would have been pleased to announce it. In any case, the House is having its opportunity to debate the matter tonight.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Nothing indicates more clearly the hand-to-mouth basis on which the Government work. Before a Committee of this House, they have no idea what they are to do for the fishing industry because they are awaiting crucial returns, but within 24 hours they are able to make an announcement. I cannot believe that even this inefficient Labour Government had no idea in the debate in Committee what they were going to do. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government made up their minds within 24 hours of the Committee what the subsidy would be,

it suggests that the Government have lost their sense of direction altogether. That is also the feeling in the fishing industry.
This episode typifies the attitude that the fishing industry has come to expect from the Government. I say seriously and with respect to the hon. Gentleman that if that is the sort of argument he intends to put to us, we will not accept it. Nor will the fishing industry be kidded. I move among fishermen and talk to them, and I know they feel that the Government act in a hand-to-mouth way in dealing with the fishing industry.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned, quite rightly, the help which the industry has received, and which I acknowledge—£6,250,000 for the first six months of this year. Has that sum been paid out in full? If not, what balance is left? Is the remainder to be paid out? Is the fact that a balance still remains due to administrative delay or delay in making claims? Does the hon. Gentleman expect the full sum to be paid out?
My information is that in the first six months of this year the Scheme cost not £6¼ million but £4¼ million and that the full cost of it did not come up to the Ministry's expectation. I should like clarification of this matter. If the cost was not £6¼ million, I should like to know what it was. There may have been some misleading of the industry in this respect.
I turn to the details of the Scheme and the position in the industry. The Minister of State quite rightly said that conditions in the industry improved in the third quarter of the year, and that it was on the basis of this improvement that the Government decided to reduce the rates and terminate the Scheme at the end of the year. I should like to consider for a few moments the question of costs in different sections of the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) will deal more specifically with the English side of the question and I hope that the House will forgive me if I deal with the Scottish side, of which I have first-hand experience and on which I can more readily obtain information.
The Minister of State spoke of an improving situation in the industry, but in fact it is a loss situation. If I were an outsider listening to the debate who


knew nothing about the industry, I should be excused for thinking that the industry was going into an improving situation, perhaps a profit situation, but nothing could be further from the truth.
I wish to deal with the three sections of the industry which interest me. The first is the deep-sea industry. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) have an intimate knowledge of this matter. I have the figures relating to the number of boats in operation and the total average loss per boat, but I prefer to deal with the matter on a daily basis and not to burden the House with statistics. The figures which I shall use have been presented to the Government and have been audited. Therefore, they have not been simply plucked out of the air.
For the six months to 30th June 1975 the average loss per day of each of the 58 vessels operating from Aberdeen in the middle- and distant-water Scottish fleet was £86. Depreciation is £72—10 percent. on the insurance value of the vessel, which is very much below the replacement value. For the first six months of this year, the average operating loss on every day that those vessels put to sea was a total of £158. There was a subsidy of £56 per day, leaving an average operating loss of £102 per vessel for every day that it put to sea.
There has been an improvement in the two months for which I have the latest figures, July and August. There is normally an improvement in the third quarter because the weather is better and the vessels spend more days at sea. For those two months, the daily loss fell from £86 to £63. The depreciation is £76. Depreciation continues regardless of operating costs. Therefore, the total operating loss is £139 per day against an average subsidy payment per day of £53. There was a substantial loss of £86 a day for every day that the boats were at sea.
That is the improving situation of which the Government speak. Indeed it is an improving situation, but it still leaves the industry in a loss position. What other industry, except perhaps a nationalised industry or the motor car industry, can continue working every day and make a loss of that kind? The industry cannot continue on that path. I beg the Government to realise that fact.
That is perhaps shown most particularly if we compare the number of vessels that were in Aberdeen two years ago with the number there today; there has been a reduction of about 35. I accept that this has not all happened during the last six months, but the loss has accelerated in the past 12 months. The Scottish middle- and distant-water fleet comprises about 80 vessels—the all-time low for that fleet. The facts of what is happening in the industry are before the Government and the House.
I turn to the overall position for the year to 30th September. I am working on estimates; audited figures are not yet available. For Aberdeen vessels, the loss will average about £30,000 per vessel after subsidy has been paid. That is the measure of the financial crisis facing the industry.
The inshore industry is important not only to places such as Aberdeen and Granton but to smaller villages and ports around the coast. For the boats fishing for white fish the situation is not quite so bad, but for the herring industry the situation is serious.
First, I shall deal with the Scottish white fish industry. I have had discussions with the White Fish Authority, which has supplied figures. About 400 vessels of between 60 ft. to 80 ft. in length fish for white fish from Scotland. For the three months June, July and August—the most recent period—there was an overall loss of £120,000 before depreciation for those 400-odd vessels. If depreciation is added, I am told that the figure is boosted to £2½ million. Therefore, the situation is extremely serious. Considerable loss has been suffered in that section of the industry.
I made some inquiries towards the end of last week to obtain more recent figures for the smaller boats which fish for white fish. Anyone who knows the industry will appreciate that it is harder to get figures for smaller boats. From inquiries made of fish salesmen, I managed to obtain a fairly representative sample of 28 vessels ranging from 50 ft. to 80 ft. in length. Smaller boats have lower operating costs, and the one gleam of optimism that I would grant to the Minister is that the loss has been only about £200 over this period. However, depreciation of £800 has to be added to that figure and, therefore, it is evident that


these smaller boats were operating at a loss of £1,000 per boat—according to this sample—over that three-month period. Even in a section of the industry which has been doing better over the past three months, there is an average loss of £1,000 for every boat in the group.
The situation is most serious in the herring industry. I have been unable to get precise figures, although some of my hon. Friends may have been able to obtain figures over the weekend. However, I shall put three figures before the House. This section of the industry has been subject to the same costs as the rest of the industry—an increase of about 22 per cent. compared with a year ago—but it has seen a reduction in the weight of its catch, from 1st January to the Middle of October, of about 26 per cent., and a fall in its value is about 28·6 per cent. as compared with the similar period in the previous year.
With that kind of situation, a reduction in the catch—and it has suffered a far greater fall than the white fish industry—a very dramatic drop in value and a 22 per cent. increase in costs, we must realise the serious situation facing many of our herring fishermen.
Here I come to my third question to the Minister. This applies specifically to the inshore industry, the herring industry and the Scottish white fish industry. In the face of this economic situation and the reduction and subsequent withdrawal of the subsidy, what is the Minister's view of the position of the Scottish inshore fishermen in relation to those people meeting their repayments of the capital due on the loans which they have had from the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority? My information is that about 40 per cent. of commitments that were due to be met in repayments at the end of September have not been met.
The inshore industry in Scotland has an almost totally clear record of always keeping up with these repayments of loans and interest in regard to the very useful grants and loans it receives from the statutory bodies. I understand that the authorities are being generous, as the Minister has indicated in a previous debate, in not pressing for these payments. However, if this figure is true and 40 per cent. of inshore fishermen are

behind with their payments, it is a frightening matter and we must realise what it means. It means not only that repayments are being delayed but also that interest is beginning to accrue on what has not been paid. This is adding to the burden on those fishermen.
I hope very much that the Minister will be able to give some more reassuring picture. Again this is only an impression that I have been able to gain, but it has been gained from those who have first-hand experience of the industry. If 40 per cent. are falling behind with their loan repayments, albeit so far for only a short period—we are only at the end of November—this is something that bodes very ill for the future Scottish inshore industry.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Has it been drawn to my hon. Friend's attention that very high survey fees also make the cash flow position very difficult?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend knows, we support safety for the industry, but given the cost of the safety requirements and the survey fees in particular—which we debated a week or two ago—this is an added cost burden. I am sorry that the Government have been so unresponsive in helping to meet these costs or considering a moratorium concerning these surveys.
That is the position at present in the Scottish industry. I ask the Government and all hon. Members: what industry can continue being viable in that sort of situation? I understand that the price of fuel, for example, which is a major part of the costs of the industry, is to rise again on 1st January by about £8 to £12 per ton. A middle-distance vessel going out from Aberdeen burns about 2 to 2¼ tons of fuel per day. That will mean another £16 to £30 of extra cost daily, in addition to the loss figures I have already mentioned.
That is the "improving situation" which the Government are mentioning and under which they want to reduce the subsidy and eventually to withdraw it. In this situation it is not surprising that there is so much cynicism and disbelief in the industry as to the protestations that the Government make about their wish to help it.
Finally, I want to mention three things that are relevant to the Scheme. First,


there is the question of depreciation. My worry is that the Government are dealing far too much with simply the direct costs of operating a fishing vessel and are not paying anything like sufficient attention to the need for the industry to meet its depreciation costs. I have cited the figures in relation to Aberdeen. If one adds in depreciation, one just about doubles the operating loss.
I have cited the position in relation to the white fish boats, the section of the industry that is doing the best, covering about 400 vessels. Operating losses of £120,000 rise to £2½ million if depreciation is added. We must take depreciation into account when considering the industry's cost situation, because otherwise our fishermen will not have the resources with which to modernise and replace their vessels. The Government's present policy is running the fleet on to the rocks. We shall see the fleet run down. We shall not see the modern methods and the new boats which the industry needs if it is to compete in a much more difficult international situation in the future.
Unless the Government are prepared to pay much more attention to the problem of depreciation and ensure that the industry gets the returns that are adequate to cover depreciation, we shall see a massive rundown in our fleet in the future similar to that which we can already see especially in our middle- and distant-water fleet in Aberdeen and also in our smaller inshore ports. Therefore, I ask the Minister when he replies to assure us that the subsidy question can still be open and that if it is open the Government will pay much more attention to the question of depreciation, otherwise we shall see this industry run down.
Secondly—this is fundamental to the whole debate—the Minister said that he sees a future in which the industry will be viable and will cover its costs. Can he really put his hand on his heart and say that? Is he aware of what is happening in Iceland? Is he aware that if Iceland is successful in what it is doing, it will push back an enormous amount of fishing effort into the inshore waters around our coast? Moreover, in any event, we shall soon see limits pushed out generally, not in a year's time but

perhaps in two years' time, to 200 miles, and, apart from Iceland's actions, we shall see our middle- and distant-water efforts pushed back into our inshore waters. Does not the Minister understand that when that happens we shall see a greater fishing effort in our home waters, and thus there will be less fish for each individual boat to catch? Does he not see that as a danger for our fishing industry? Will he not face up to it as a reality which our fishermen are having to face up to but which the Government seem to be conveniently ignoring? Will he give us some assurance that the Government are alive to this matter?
I understand that a study has been made of what we should lose in terms of our middle- and distant-water fleet if limits were pushed out to 200 miles and what in proportion we might gain as our share of the Common Market fisheries pond if it were done simply on a proportional basis, projecting our existing share. At present values, out of total annual landings of about £150 million, I believe that we should stand to lose aproximately £50 million worth—that's a 33⅓ per cent. loss of fish landings in this country.
I ask the Minister to put on his other hat and consider his responsibilities for food. Is he prepared to stand by and see that happen to our housewives and consumers? That is the type of situation which the Government are drifting towards without saying or doing anything positive to meet it. I hope that the Minister will be able to say a few words about this matter tonight.
There is one final matter which is also relevant to the future and to the uncertainties which the industry faces. Indeed, the industry and I have repeatedly asked that the Government should continue their help, at least on a temporary basis, until some of these uncertainties are resolved. I am referring to the whole of the Government's policy concerning the law of the sea and the common fisheries policy which they have pledged themselves to renegotiate in this new situation.
On the law of the sea, it is a fair assessment that one cannot be certain of a conclusion being reached early next year when the conference reconvenes. It may


come later. Therefore, I ask the Government to give the industry an assurance to-night in this state of very great uncertainty that, in the event of failure to reach a conclusion early next year to resolve these matters, they will consider approaching the matter on a North Atlantic basis and taking some initiative on a narrower basis than perhaps all fishing nations, to seek some resolution and at least to set the pace a bit more than they are doing at present for resolving the question of international limits.
As for the Common Market countries, I beg the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North and also those who sit on the SNP Bench—[Interruption.]—yes, I heard those two hon. Members laugh together at the reference to the common fisheries policy—to remember that if we use the Common Market rightly, as a means of improving our negotiating strength, we ought to be able to reach a good conclusion at the Law of the Sea Conference. Let it be remembered that fishery limits are not negotiated only in Europe; they are negotiated world-wide, and as 10 nations meeting together we are much stronger than one nation—much stronger than the Scottish nation alone.
If the Common Market is to mean anything—I believe that it can be made to mean something—by using our negotiating strength through membership of the Common Market we can exercise a far greater influence on the Law of the Sea Conference. Let us approach it in that way, being prepared to bring the Common Market countries together to reach a proper resolution of the severe problems that face us.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the West Germans concluded a separate agreement with Iceland without considering us?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that the negotiations with Iceland were negotiations between one nation and another. Equally, he may not have understood that the negotiations in the Law of the Sea Conference are multilateral, and I am talking about multilateral negotiations. In Iceland's case—it is their waters that the Icelanders are talking about—the

Icelandic Government chose to negotiate on a unilateral basis. The position is entirely different in the Law of the Sea Conference.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman said, with reference to Iceland, that they are negotiating about their waters. They are not their waters. They are international waters.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right there, and I accept what he says.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Then apologise.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I should certainly not apologise to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr). If he would himself set an example of courtesy, I might be prepared to follow it, but until he does I shall do nothing of the kind. But the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) is right to point out that they are international waters, and Britain has been vindicated in making its case that they are international waters. But the Icelandic Government—I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North—have laid unilateral claim to those waters, and it is on that basis that the negotiation with Iceland is proceeding. That is the point I am making, drawing the distinction from the Law of the Sea Conference.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chose to be so patronising in his response to me. My point is simply that the solidarity in the EEC did not seem to work in the case of negotiations with Iceland, where people simply operated on a bilateral basis, one nation negotiating with another. I am suggesting that perhaps on fishing and the EEC generally we ought to operate on the same basis.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider the general history of international negotiations and have a word with some of his colleagues in the Foreign Office. He will then understand the totally different basis on which these two sets of negotiations are proceeding.
The industry is in deep uncertainty on both the economic situation and the whole question of limits and international


negotiation. I ask the Government to take an initiative with our European partners in the Common Market to try to break the deadlock in international negotiations on fishing limits and the 200 miles. The Government have repeatedly said—we have heard it in Committee—that they are taking the initiative. The Minister must tell us tonight what initiative they have taken, what decisions have been reached, and what meetings there have been to establish us as the leading fishing nation of Europe. I believe that the Government are dragging their feet in this matter. We could be leading Europe forward and using our negotiating strength in order to obtain a more realistic deal for our fishermen.
I believe that while this Scheme gives limited temporary help to the industry, what the Government are doing is inadequate for the needs of the industry. The Government are letting down our fishermen. They are ignoring the longer-term food needs of our housewives. I urge the Government to take the subject more seriously, to stop playing around with the industry, and to do something on a longer-term basis.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): When this debate began I did not expect that I would have to make an appeal for brevity in speeches. As hon. Members are aware, the debate must finish by 11.30 tonight. Hon. Members may disagree with my point of view, but I am merely making a suggestion. I have not said that hon. Members must agree to my suggestion. I am merely asking them to be reasonable and to allow the 10 hon. Members who are anxious to take part in the debate to do so.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). It is interesting to know that one field of public expenditure is to be saved from Margaret's axe, namely, the fishing subsidies. Indeed, the Tory Party is united in its desire to increase public expenditure in the fishing industry. I would be quite happy about that if it were not for the fact that that is the first area of expenditure that the Conservatives axed

in 1970 when they attacked the operating subsidy introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), who was a distinguished Minister of Agriculture and one of the best fishery Ministers we have ever had. In fact, they attacked the whole basis of subsidies to the fishing fleet generally.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member said about the spearhead of advance which we are to get from the Common Market countries in solving this problem. I have with me an official handout from the British Trawler Federation to Members of Parliament about the agreement reached with the Common Market countries at the time of our accession. The handout states that
The terms of the Common Fisheries Policy should give some recognition to the United Kingdom's predominance in this sphere, but they do not. They were hurriedly devised, on the eve of United Kingdom entry into EEC, without any pretence of consultation with or regard for the needs of the United Kingdom or any other new entrant. They were devised by the Six for the benefit of the Six and in the context of a world of 12-mile fishery limits.
We have had nothing but humbug from the Opposition so far. Having said that, may I also say to my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that I have heard nothing from them, either. All we have had has been a string of statements about payments made one way or the other. We have heard nothing whatsoever about the future of the industry—distant water, middle water or inshore. We have heard nothing whatsoever about future policy, and nothing about the overall effects, as seen by the Government—of the Law of the Sea Conference on this issue.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State said what we have done. He said that the fleet has had time to adjust. Yes, it has. I have some brand-new modern freezers laid up in the port of Hull and not fishing. Over 400 fishermen, members of my union, are unemployed. Men are laid off from trawler maintenance work in the city of Hull. We have heard that a fish processing plant is to close in the next few months. Is this progress? Are these adjustments? Is this the happy and successful future that we are to have in the fishing industry that my hon. Friend has been talking about? We have had no indication of policy. When my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North


(Mr. Hughes) asked for a White Paper, what was the reply?
There is no policy, and no idea of where we are going. The Government hope that there will be an upturn after Christmas. The price of fish always goes up then. They are more difficult to catch and have a scarcity value. Then we shall come into the new series of quotas with Norway and in the North-East Atlantic, and the Government hope to get the men to sea for a few months and get over this hump. But the period of quotas will come to an end and we shall be back in the same position.
The trawler owners are no particular friends of mine, but I predict that they will be here cap in hand at the end of the year requesting, urgently and desperately, Government assistance on current expenditure accounts. They do not know where they are going. They cannot plan or decide what vessels to order because they cannot see where the Government are taking them.
We have had no positive Government statement about what is to happen over fishing limits, and no statement that we might do the same as other countries on a peaceful basis. The Government have not even said that they will consider the situation. The Trawler Federation is pressing for a 200-mile limit and a 100-mile exclusive economic zone. The Government's reaction has been deafening in its silence. They have not even said that they are interested, or that they will consider the suggestion. There has been no response. We have had no undertakings from the Government that there will be any sort of bilateral negotiations on what is to happen.
On the coast of Yorkshire, we have had droves of foreign vessels fishing out our stocks. A similar situation is occurring off the South Coast of England. Down there they are even complaining about Hull vessels? I do not know what would happen if they had Scotsmen down there! We have not had any positive action from the Government or from any previous Governments. This is not a new phenomenon. We have heard nothing about the way in which the Government are going to deal with the problem of overfishing in our own area, and this will be increasingly important, as we shall be

forced back to make greater fishing demands in our own waters.
There has been no statement from the Government that they may consider ways of policing foreign vessels in our waters. They have not even said that they will consider limiting the number of vessels from a particular country in a particular area and the number of days on which they can fish there. That would be a positive limitation on the actual fishing effort. Foreign statistics of what is going on are completely inaccurate. Off the South Coast, a British patrol vessel even had to inform a Belgian vessel that the Belgian Government had announced that they had already satisfied their own quota. We must have something better than that.
The Minister said the adjustment was being made to meet some of the problems of inflation but the amount of the subsidy has fallen, because quotas have been reached and vessels have been laid up. Nothing positive is being done to encourage fresh investment in new vessels.
The Minister spoke about imports and the strong action taken by the Government to deal with them. He referred to the system of reference prices, which the Common Market has so kindly negotiated with us. It is estimated that the Norwegian Government will subsidise their fleet by about 100 million units of account next year. Fish have been landed from Eastern European countries at prices below which not even they could catch them.
We also know what the industry says about the reference price, namely, that
There is a widespread lack of confidence in the effectiveness of the reference price system"—
so much for my hon. Friend's fanfare about it—
as a means of controlling grossly unfair competition from fish imported from third countries. We feel strongly that, in its place, there should be a system of minimum entry prices, or threshold prices, below which imports would be prohibited. But, as far as imports of frozen fillets are concerned, we cannot accept that the EEC conversion factors are right. Frozen fillets retail prices are below the raw material cost of fillets produced from British fish bought at the wholesale prices generally operated at United Kingdom ports!
Is that a satisfactory arrangement? It does not satisfy the unemployed fishermen in Hull.
I now come to the question of what is to happen about the common fisheries policy, which has an important effect upon subsidies and upon the whole content of this Scheme. I have already quoted what the trawler industry said about the way in which the Tories threw away the British fishing interest on the eve of going into the Common Market. However, for better or for worse we are in the Common Market for the moment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: For the moment.

Mr. McNamara: We start with the situation that, as far as I can assess it, all that we have within the Common Market bureaucracy is a division to deal with the problems of fishing. We need at least a directorate. The present division does not seem to have any expertise, and, lamentably, it has been weakened over the past six to nine months, for a number of reasons.
Our position in the Community is that we have the biggest fleet, the largest consumption of fish within our own country and the largest fishing resources around our own islands, but the greater part of our fishing effort is concentrated outside our own immediate waters. That being the case, we have to be very careful to maintain the size and strength of our fishing fleet, so that when the time comes to negotiate with our Common Market partners we shall be in a position to drive a bargain that represents our interests as the greatest fishing nation within the Community, rather than accept anything which the other countries suggest. If we proceed on the basis of the catch from our own waters, our position will be considerably weakened.
We have the strange scheme involving £60 million for reducing Community fleets that was referred to in the Press earlier this week. If we are put in that situation, it will be of little or no help to our fishermen. The scheme deals only with the smaller boats. Will my hon. Friend confirm that under that scheme the amount of money to be given to help to train and retrain fishermen will be only 5 per cent. of the total cost of the project? It will be a great encouragement, will it not to get 5 per cent. from that scheme?
We have before us a half-baked measure to provide a temporary remedy for

some of our ills. The Government have shown no ability to diagnose the real problems facing our industry.

Mr. Bishop: If my hon. Friend had been present at more of our fishing debates he would not have been asking about future policy indications. I have indicated the continuing negotiations for acces to international waters around other countries, including Iceland and Norway. I have recently been involved in the Icelandic negotiations, albeit unsuccessfully. I recently met the Norwegian Minister to discuss access to international waters around that country's shores. We are also involved with the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, where we have said that we believe not in unilateral action but in universal agreement on a 200-mile limit. That is why we deplore the unilateral action taken by Iceland. We played a part in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries quota arrangments, where we took certain initiatives. My hon. Friend knows that in April of this year my right hon. Friend said that we would take initiatives through the common fisheries policy. My hon. Friend should acknowledge all that we have done.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Now will he say what the policy is? What has he asked for? What quotas is he getting from Norway? What agreement is he making about international waters? What proposals has he put forward to the Common Market countries? I ask him to give us something that we can discuss, something that we can get our teeth into, something on which we can assess what Government policy is about. Then we might be happier. I shall happily give way to my hon. Friend if he can tell me. I am very interested. I am pleased about every one of these initiatives. Where have they got us? What have we asked for?

Mr. Bishop: I repeat to my hon. Friend that if he had attended our many debates on fishing, both in the House and in Committee, he would have had a very detailed background knowledge of these matters. He will appreciate that in negotiations it is not a good point to reveal one's hand too soon. We recognise that Britain has the biggest fishing interest in the Community and we shall try to keep it that way.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful for that. Now what has my hon. Friend asked for? I shall give way to my hon. Friend. We have the biggest fishing fleet in the Community, and my hon. Friend hopes to keep in that way. How big? What is our negotiating position? What is my hon. Friend asking for? That is the point, and that is what we do not know. What we know is that vessels are laid up and that men are unemployed. Therefore, although I welcome what has been done, I am not happy about our lack of fishing policies.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: There has been an appeal from the Chair for short speeches. I think that I can say all that I need say in a couple of minutes.
We have had these debates before. The Minister has been down to the South Coast and has seen my own fishermen on the quay. They have expressed disappointment that the subsidies apply only to 40 ft vessels. We thought that we had convinced him that the horse-power of the boat was more important than its length.
I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that last week there was a very serious collision in the Channel. A large tanker was holed by a naval vessel. If it had not been for the fishing fleet in Folkestone and Dungeness, the Channel would have taken much longer to clean. The fishing fleet turned out immediately. Boats were able to put detergent on to the oil and, instead of what was expected to be another "Torrey Canyon" disaster, we had a clean sea and clean harbours in three days. Surely that alone justifies keeping our fishing fleet going.
Government supporters have stressed much better than I can that the fishing fleet cannot carry on without subsidies of this kind. Without the fishing fleet, we shall have no lifeboat crews. Without the fishing fleet, we shall not be able to clear up the Channel when we have further accidents. I ask the Minister to help us.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) pointed out correctly that in the Conservative negotiations for entry into the EEC no concern

had been shown for our fishermen. The hon. Gentleman might have continued the story by demonstrating that no concern had been shown for our fishermen in the Labour Party renegotiations with the EEC. The position is unchanged, and time is moving on. Looking ahead to 1982, it appears from the dilatory methods of the Government that if the fishing industry still exists it will be in danger of coming to an end.
I welcome this scheme for a further extension of the white fish and herring subsidies, but I regret that there has been no change in the Government's attitude towards an extension of the subsidies. The lifebelt thrown to the fishing industry will be snatched away, perhaps at its moment of greatest need. A crucial situation confronts the industry. After 31st December, unless the Government have some regard for the issues at stake, the industry will face one of the worst economic crises in its history.
The facts speak for themselves. Landings of all species for the period 1st January to 4th October this year amounted to just over 5½ million cwts, valued at £42 million—a drop of 974,907 cwt and £7½ million, compared with the same period in 1974. In the first seven months of this year, earnings for the whole of the Scottish fishing industry dropped by £7½ million, yet in the same period the costs of gear, fuel, and so on, soared, and additional heavy survey costs have now to be added to the cost of running the vessels.
As for the men themselves, there was a drop in numbers from 1973 to 1974, and there has been a rapid downward swing this year. In Stornaway, in my constituency, there were 20 crews wanting boats three or four years ago. There are now boats for sale. That situation can be duplicated in many ports around the coast.
The decision to discontinue the subsidy will inevitably hasten the departure of more men from the industry, and they are unlikely to return. This will inflate the unemployment figures in traditional fishing areas and cause a shortage of fish and a steep rise in prices to the already overburdened housewife.
All this will follow from the Government's refusal to sustain this vital industry through its difficult days. The


Government are setting the fishing industry adrift, without waiting until it is in a strong enough position to bear the brunt of what is to come and without the offer of alternative aid or action.
I should like to say something about policing. In my part of the country, small inshore fishermen are having their fishings destroyed through lack of proper protection. I have been in touch with the Scottish Office about the matter on several occasions. Why has the Scottish Office fleet been reduced from nine vessels to six? The vessels are required to police areas of breeding stock of fish whose protection would benefit all fishermen—inshore, middle waters, and so on.
The position is aggravated by the Government's stubborn attitude in response to the almost universal demand from all sections of the fishing industry to extend the fishing limits. It should not be impossible to negotiate regional agreements well in advance of a world agreement on all other aspects of the law of the sea. Surely that is not impossible when it is demanded by all sections of the fishing industry in the United Kingdom.
Delay is dangerous. There will not be an industry to support by the time the Government get round to taking the decision to extend the limits. It is a decision that they know perfectly well they will take eventually. There is no getting away from that, and they should face up to it now. I say "Take it now, while it still makes sense."

9.38 p.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I wish to speak rather more specifically to the problems experienced in the past few months by the Cornish fishing industry. We have an unusual situation in Cornwall, where for once the small man was beating the big man. Then, it appears to the local people, the rules were changed to make sure that the big man won after all.
The Cornish fishing industry is essentially built up on boats of less than 40 ft. in length. It has been built up in the past 10 years mainly by the initiative and good sense of the local community, who have exploited the Roscoff ferry connection between Cornwall and Europe and now sell many tons of Cornish mackerel in Europe. The Cornish have always had the good sense to eat

mackerel. The main problem was that the English had never known the delights of that fish, and therefore we had to find other markets.
The problem now is that the industry has been invaded by ships from other parts of the country. The Cornishman would not particularly object to that if he were competing on intelligent, economic grounds. But I understand that many of the boats that have come to Cornwall are not suited to fishing for mackerel and that the only reason why they have come, and presumably are running profitably, is the EEC subsidy, the guaranteed price for meal.
The Cornish fishermen are desperate to have a system by which the amount of fish caught and marketed for meal is limited on a tonnage per man per day basis. That is a system that would find favour with others besides the Cornish fishermen. Many people are genuinely concerned about the long-term conservation of fish stocks which have been built up. It now appears that anything that moves and can be taken from the sea can be ground up and sold for short-term profit. The Cornish fisherman is asking for equal treatment. He would accept a situation in which the industry was told to manage without subsidies or a situation in which he received the same subsidies as everyone else. Over the past few years the Cornish fishing industry has made good profits.
I am talking about a community in which 10·3 per cent. of my constituents are unemployed. That is 10·3 per cent. of the working population. The Cornish fishing industry has been built up over the past five or six years to provide well over 1,000 jobs, but we are now in real danger, in the short term, of destroying an industry which has been making money within the national fishing set-up.
Little reference has been made to the Statutory Instrument before us, but it concerns the 40-ft vessels. The argument that is taking place a long way away concerning Iceland is pushing the long-distance fishermen into middle waters and the middle-water fishermen into the inshore fishing areas. As a local fisherman in my constituency said only recently. "The only place left for me to fish is up the High Street." As hon. Members will no doubt appreciate, one does not


find many fish in the High Street. I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to the inshore industry.
The fishermen would like a substantial extension of fishing limits. In the past few weeks many people have pointed out to me the enthusiasm that is shown by the Government for protecting what appear to me to be dubious claims on moral grounds to fish 26 miles off the coast of Iceland, hundreds of miles away. That is a claim that they make with great enthusiasm, yet they appear to show no interest or inclination to take positive action to protect fishing rights within 13 miles of the coast off my constituency.
I ask the Minister to think carefully about the inshore fishing industry, an industry that can provide good and well-paid jobs in some of the remoter areas which have sustained and substantial unemployment. The present lack of policy is in danger of destroying an industry that many men have spent the past 10 years building up into something of real significance for Cornwall.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has taken such a buffeting that I feel I should come to his defence. The kind of criticism which has been made of the Government was predictable, given that the decision to continue the fishing subsidy took such a long time to be finalised and, when finalised, meant a reduction in the amount available. It is natural that there should be a great deal of criticism.
I do not dissociate myself from much of the criticism which has been made, except to say that I realise that the Government are in a difficult position. For generations, Governments of all colours have taken the view in fishing matters, as in other matters, that we should always play by the rules of the game. If there are negotiations to be undertaken or if negotiations are in the process of taking place, we are the last people to do anything to disrupt them or to suggest that we should take a certain course of action if we are unsuccessful. I do not know how many times I have heard it said that we must not declare our hand and that if we go into negotiations we must enter them freely without saying that if we do not get our way we shall have it anyway.
The Government have been caught up by a number of events which they could not have foreseen—for example, the rapid increase in oil costs which has meant an increase in operating costs. There has been general inflation, and an increase in the limits off Iceland has been established unilaterally. The Government do not know exactly where they stand. I say that not as a condemnation of the Government but as a statement of fact.
I appreciate that the Minister of State cannot say that the Government do not know where they are going. I know that I occasionally stood at the Dispatch Box and denied allegations that the Government did not know where they were going although that was the case. The Government and the industry have to make up their minds about what kind of industry they want. Do they want a subsidised industry? If so, the sooner we get down to discussions on a long-term basis, dealing with how the subsidies will operate, the better it will be for everyone. My fishing contacts say quite clearly that what concerns them is the lack of vision and the corresponding inability to make sensible decisions about the size of the fleet, the ordering of new boats and so on.
I do not believe that responsibility for this rests entirely with the Government. I do not believe that the industry knows where it wants to go. It says that it wants a profitable industry which does not have to rely on subsidies, but it cannot tell us how it will reach that state. It may well have to come to the view that subsidies must be a permanent feature. If so, the industry must accept that no Government can simply hand out money without exercising a greater control over the industry. The "dreaded spectre of Government interference" as someone put it, has to be taken into account. This is why I have asked on more than one occasion for a White Paper dealing with the industry. The trouble is that the Government choose to interpret this as a request to produce a White Paper setting out definitively what the future of the industry will be.
There is merit in producing a White Paper setting out the problems, the different approaches and the benefits which


lie on one hand and the disadvantages which exist on the other hand. There are advantages and disadvantages in subsidy arrangements. The Government must give us a much more comprehensive review showing where we are going. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) asked some awkward questions. If he had attended all the fishing debates he would know what the answers were. We can go through all the debates picking out bits and pieces and try to produce our own White Paper. But this is a Government responsibility.
I welcome the extension of the subsidy. I hope that in the short period left to us there will be a further extension, either at the same or at an increased level.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is not in the Chamber. We should hear a little less humbug from the Opposition Front Bench these days. Conservatives are totally responsible for the current EEC fisheries policy. They accepted it in the negotiations and said that it was for the benefit of our industry. Now they say that it should be renegotiated. That would not be necessary if it had not been accepted in the first place.
It is a little hard that the Leader of the Opposition should go to the Dispatch Box on almost every occasion when the Prime Minister answers Questions and demand public expenditure cuts, not next year or next month but today, this week. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House put it well when he said that far too often the Opposition talk public expenditure cuts but act public expenditure increases. This is a prime example. They want public expenditure increases for the fishing industry. I do not disagree. But they cannot repeat throughout the country that we must cut public expenditure globally and then enter this special pleading.

Mr. Hamish Gray: Would not the hon. Member accept that demands for subsidies for the fishing industry involve peanuts compared with the thousands of millions of pounds which the Government want to spend on ludicrous nationalisation?

Mr. Hughes: May I give a "Yes-No" answer. Yes, the amount of money is

probably peanuts compared with global public expenditure, but I do not agree that the amount of money that is to be spent on nationalisation is ludicrous. That is money well spent. This is a perfect example of what I was saying. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) wishes to cut public expenditure in one sector and to increase it in another. There is no absolute standard. We would all make different choices. I would wish to cut defence expenditure whereas the hon. Member would not. We can argue that at some other time.
Will my hon. Friend tell us when he replies how many trawling companies, individual inshore boats and owners of several inshore boats run a depreciation account? How many put money by when the industry was profitable so that there would be money in the kitty towards replacement? I suspect that very few have done so. My family was in fishing for a long time. There is none left now, I suppose because the eldest sons and others have more sense than to go into fishing. It was always a hard and not very remunerative job in my father's and grandfather's day. In those days, when a boat was in shared ownership the income was divided into so much for each member of the crew, so much for the running expenses and so much for the boat—in other words, to replace the boat. I do not know how many fishermen still do that, but I suspect that one reason why they have landed in this difficulty is that over the years they have not put sufficient away for depreciation.
One problem we face with the roll back effect—which may continue, because our deep-sea vessels will be driven back into waters formerly fished by inshore and middle-water vessels—is that fishermen throughout the United Kingdom are beginning to fight among themselves about who shall have the right to fish in a certain area.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said that fishermen objected to other vessels coming into their areas. He may have had foreign vessels in mind. Complaints have been coming from the South of England about Scots boats coming to fish off those waters, but they are just as entitled to do that as English boats are entitled to fish in Scottish


waters. Fishermen throughout the length and breadth of the country are dividing amongst themselves when they should be making common cause. I find it strange that the Leader of the SNP, who complains about the South of England, should speak of "Scottish" oil but not agree about "English" fish.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made an interesting speech, to which I shall refer later. We have heard arguments about the common fisheries policy. Some have argued that the Conservative Party is to blame for not getting the policy right before we went into the Common Market. Some have argued that the fisheries policy did not form part of the Labour Party's renegotiation. All these arguments are sterile, because, whoever is to blame, we are faced with that policy and have to deal with it.
I have always felt that the fisheries policy should be renegotiated within the Community. A policy designed for six countries is not necessarily the right policy for nine countries, especially when one of the nine has the biggest fishing interests of any country within the EEC. I find it difficult to understand why the Government have not made a more determined effort to renegotiate the common fisheries policy.
Part of the uncertainty that affects the industry flows from the fact that we do not know exactly what will happen when we get the new limits from the Law of the Sea conference. It would be fatal for Britain to leave renegotiation of the common fisheries policy until we have the result of the Law of the Sea Conference. If the Government delay any further they will lose their negotiating position. Their No. 1 priority should be that this renegotiation takes place forthwith. The Government should consider the fishing industry as a major British interest. Some of us who are connected with the industry think that from time to time it has been given a rather Cinderella-like treatment. We expect the Government to make the most determined attempts to renegotiate the policy and, if necessary, to take the same firm steps as other countries.
I join in the general criticism of the Government that their policy is not only unclear but is weak and flabby.
Months before Iceland extended its limits it was well known that she would do so and that our trawlers would be under stress in international waters when the agreement came to an end, but we had to wait until our trawlers were attacked before action was taken. The Government said to the trawlers "Stay there in international waters and continue to fish, as is your right". The Government should not have done so without giving the trawlers the support of the Royal Navy. It is this weakness and flabbiness which is leading to the criticisms of the Government from both sides of the House.
It is an ill thing for an industry to have to be subsidised, and I welcome the fact that the Conservative Government found the industry in such a profitable condition that they could withdraw the subsidy. I am certain that most of the fishermen that I know would be glad if we were not having to have a debate about subsidies.
Why is it that an industry which only comparatively recently was surviving without a subsidy, now has to come to the House to ask for one? The truth is that the competition that the fishermen are facing is unfair, because subsidised fish is coming into this country from abroad. It is no longer a free and open market, because goods are coming in at a specially low price, caused not by superior catching methods by either Iceland or Norway but by an injection of public money. Off Iceland our trawlers are fishing in "boxes", supervised by the Navy, at times and in places where they do not want to fish. This is an artificial situation. They are not catching fish in normal circumstances and therefore their claim to subsidy is justified at this time.
The Minister came to my constituency to talk and listen to inshore fishermen, and I think that he understood their problems. I echo what has been said about the vessels under 40 ft in length. I echo the demand that if we are to have subsidies they should be based not on the length but on the horse-power of a vessel. The hon. Gentleman's colleague in the Department of Trade received nothing like the reception that the hon.


Gentleman received. His colleague had a much more fiery time on the question of the new safety regulations, which will cost a tremendous amount of money in survey fees. I ask the Minister to consider that matter most carefully. It is an added burden, which is difficult to bear at this time.
No deep-sea trawlers are being built, and it is easy to see why—the uncertainty of the future. This matter is not entirely within the Government's control—they must await the outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference before they can look far into the future—but they have power to renegotiate the common fisheries policy of the EEC, and I beg them to do that, because it is desperately urgent.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I readily place on record that we welcome the subsidy as far as it goes. However, the news that the subsidies were to be reduced and then terminated at the end of December was greeted with deep dismay in Aberdeen. The Minister of State must not think that that is a party point. It is simply the straightforward truth.
The subsidy did not stop the fleet losing money. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said: that however one calculates the profit or loss of each vessel, certainly as it left Aberdeen—I am sure that this applies to all Scottish ports—and even if one adds the grant and does not count depreciation, which I believe one should, each vessel was losing many thousands of pounds a year. We cannot expect any industry to continue in that way.
The subsidy did not stop unemployment. It did not stop vessels being tied up. In the past 18 months or two years, 30 per cent. of the vessels fishing out of Aberdeen have had to be tied up. I do not claim that that is because of the Government's policy or lack of it—many of the vessels have been transferred to oil-related work—but, whatever the reason, it is an ingredient in the lack of confidence and the uncertainty in the industry which we are begging the Government to resolve. That uncertainty is almost the major factor in their general attitude. Also, the subsidy did not encourage new building.
When one combines all those factors with the possibly unhappy use in Committee of the word "restructuring" by the Minister of State, one understands the great and growing uncertainty in the industry. When the Minister used that word in Committee, I said to him that it sounded like a sinister euphemism for running down the fleet. When I put it to the Secretary of State for Scotland the other day, he said, possibly misunderstanding the use of the word, that he could not consider restructuring the fleet because there were too many uncertainties. That is what we are complaining about. The fishing industry wants to know the Government's plans. If the Government have planned deliberately to restructure the industry and do not wish simply to see it run down naturally, let us have the plans so that we can consider what the restructuring means.
I echo what has been said about the great surprise which I felt and which most people in the industry felt when, on the day following the Committee meeting at which we were told of the new subsidy arrangements and we had pressed the Minister to say what would happen so that we could tell our constituents "This is the plan for the next three months", the hon. Gentleman said that he could not give an answer because the Government were awaiting new statistics. The very next day we were told what were the plans. There may be a good reason for that. I was not convinced by the Minister of State when he intervened, but possibly we shall be told.
That is the sort of thing that makes the fishing industry in Aberdeen ask "Do the Government know what is going on? One day they say that they are not in a position to state what the subsidies will be, and the very next day they come forward with what the industry regards as inadequate subsidies." This treatment grossly exacerbates the uncertainty and lack of confidence that is felt by the industry.
How can the Minister expect the industry to square the importance which the Government and Opposition attach to it as a provider of food for this country in the future with the ending of aid which is vital if it is to continue? We all know of the difficult economic situation with which the Government are faced. We also know of the considerable good will


between the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the fishermen of Scotland. [Interruption.] Whatever Members of the Scottish National Party may say the fishermen in the North-East of Scotland were extremely impressed by the sincerity with which the Under-Secretary approached their problems. There is no question of any party attitude here whatever.
How can the Under-Secretary say to the fishing industry that he is not prepared to give it any subsidy whatever as from the new year while at the same time he can say to other sections of the community that the Government will spend £550 million a year on general food subsidies, the majority of which the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection admits goes to those who do not need it? How can he say to the fishing industry that the Government will not spend one penny on it when they are spending millions of pounds on nationalisation? Aberdeen is the centre of the oil industry, and we all know how much money has been lavished on that industry. However, not one penny is to be given to the fishing industry, which will be there years after the oil industry has gone.
It does not seem possible for the Government to justify the vast expenditure on general food and housing subsidies and on the nationalisation of industries and at the same time to say "We regard the fishing industry as an important industry but we cannot give you one penny." That is neither just now nor wise for the future.
The first result of Government policy has been to endanger our capacity to provide food for the future. This debate is not the place to go into that at great length, but most hon. Members will agree that within a generation the provision of food for the people of this planet will be our No. 1 problem. Yet here we are putting the provision of our food at risk by allowing the industry to run down.
The result of Government policy has also been to reduce our power of argument at the international negotiating table by allowing our fleet to run down. Our fleet is contracting faster than the fleet of any country in the EEC. That must

reduce our power when the important negotiations begin over the next six months.
The third result of Government policy has been to create unemployment. Other hon. Members have gone into this matter in some detail. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) mentioned the figure of 400 unemployed fishermen in his constituency. We have the same situation in Aberdeen In the North-East as a whole and especially in Aberdeen—possibly the hon Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) will confirm this if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker—the position is not quite the same, because if men are lost to the industry they will not come back to it when and if it revives, because they will be soaked up by the oil industry. We are, therefore, afraid that they will be lost to the fishing industry now and will never come back, and that we shall see lost for ever, or certainly for a generation, the whole of our fishing capacity off North-East Scotland. This is a very serious fact not only with regard to employment there and the social balance we want to keep in certain areas but with regard to our ability to provide ourselves with food in the future.
I have mentioned the very great and general uncertainty and lack of confidence which the industry feels. This is not confined solely to the situation with regard to subsidies. It embraces the whole situation with regard to limits, the fuel price increases that we shall see in the new year and the whole question of EEC policy. I need do no more than mention these things in passing since this is a debate about subsidies. But I beg the Government to take on board the fact that the morale of the fishing industry, as has been told to me by people engaged in the industry in Aberdeen, has never been lower. This is the worst continuing crisis that those now engaged in the industry can remember.
I ask the Government to try, if not tonight at least within the next few weeks, to end this whole stop-go attitude to the industry, the hand-to-mouth attitude under which the industry now feels it is labouring, and to give to the industry some feeling that the Government have a long-term plan. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has called


for a White Paper. I do not care whether it is a White Paper or whatever it is. However, the Government must let the industry know in writing how they see its future, because confidence must be restored to the industry. Long-term

stability and long-term viability is what the industry must have. I should have thought that some continuation of subsidy as from the new year would at least contribute something towards that much-needed confidence.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: I take up one point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). He said that there was within the industry a great deal of good will towards the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I think that the hon. Gentleman was describing a situation that was probably true some months ago. However, he must now be aware that there is considerable concern in the industry about the position which the Under-Secretary has taken and about the lack of initiative we have seen from him. Frankly, the industry is becoming fed up with the kind of platitudes which the Under-Secretary is wont to deliver and which I dare say we shall be hearing again when he winds up the debate. Indeed, there must be considerable competition between him and the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as to who can generate the most platitudes and say the least convincing things during a winding-up speech.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who made an extremely valuable contribution to the debate, was accused by the Minister of State of not having attended all the debates. I think that I have attended all the debates on this subject, and it will be no surprise to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central if I assure him that his conclusions are exactly the same as mine in relation to the policies, or lack of policies, of the Government.

Mr. McNamara: I did not wish to pursue my hon. Friend the Minister of State on that particular point. However, to keep the record straight, perhaps I should say that I have attended almost every fishing debate except on occasions when I have been in Committee—once in the Northern Ireland Committee and on another occasion, I think, in the Committee considering the Community Land Bill.

Mr. Henderson: I am delighted to have given the hon. Member the opportunity to correct what was clearly a very misleading impression from his hon. Friend the Minister of State.
In a rather lengthy and totally inconclusive intervention, the Minister of State

more or less said as regards the negotiations "You cannot tell the other side what your position is because they might agree with you." The Minister of State was saying "When you go into negotiations, for Heaven's sake remember that the very last thing you do is tell the other side what your position is and what you want to achieve, because there is just the outside chance that they might agree with you and reach some agreement with you."
The Government's attitude is one which must be brought to book here in the House. It has been brought to book by all sides and by all parties in this debate tonight. The criterion by which we should judge the Scheme and any other views which the Government may put forward is how relevant and useful it is to the fishing industry at present. Right from the first measure this year we have seen the subsidy for most of the boats with which I am concerned—that is, boats of 60 ft to 80 ft in length—cut from £20 a day to £15 a day while other boats have suffered by other decreases. During this time the costs of gear and oil have been rising.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) referred to the repayments which are being made and which are expected of fishermen. Fishermen morally feel that they must repay a loan which they have received. Some men in my constituency have very heavy hearts because they are financially unable to meet their commitments for repayment of loans to the White Fish Authority or the Herring Industry Board. This is not a matter which the Government can lightly shrug off. The Government, whether Labour or Conservative, induced these fishermen to re-equip and to build modern vessels with improved technology of catching, but now they are saying "We wash our hands of you". We heard all that the Minister of State said, but the Government are not doing what the industry needs.
Of course, boats of less than 40 feet are excluded. Many hon. Members have raised this matter previously with the Minister. The two- or three-man business which involves boats right at the


end of the scale is excluded from any kind of consideration.
It has not been mentioned so far, but it is right to put on record the increasing problem which the fishing industry is encountering with oil operations. I have written to the Under-Secretary on many occasions about this matter. For example, Skipper George Baird of the Peterhead boat "Duncairn" has suffered thousands of pounds worth of damage because his propellor was fouled by a hawser left by some of these people. Skipper Tommy Milne of the Peterhead boat "Starella" has suffered similarly. These are all factors which are affecting the industry, but all we have had from the Government is this Scheme, reducing the amount for the fourth quarter of this year, and then the imposition of an embargo from next year on any further funds to the industry.
We are entitled to ask what are the Government's intentions and what alternative they are offering the fishing industry in place of the subsidy. An hon. Member has already asked what progress is being made with the common fisheries policy renegotiations. We have never had a statement in this House of what progress is being made. When the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made his statement on Wednesday about the next meeting of the Common Market Ministers, he announced that Agriculture Ministers were to meet this month to consider a number of problems, prominent among which was the grubbing-up of low-quality vines, but he was totally unable to say what progress was being made on the common fisheries policy and when we were to have a statement from the Government on it. It is not good enough for the Government to leave the industry in this state of suspense and confusion.
I turn to the whole question of fishing limits generally. We hear that we must wait for the outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference. We have been waiting for that conference for the past two years. The Government must make it clear that they have a contingency position which they are prepared to adopt if agreement is not reached at the next session of the Law of the Sea Conference. It would be useful for them now to call a conference of the political leaders of

all the fishing nations in the West and to invite not only Government leaders but people from the Opposition parties in those countries as well. Let them discuss the issue and see whether a consensus emerges which can give us the increase in limits which we so desperately need. I hope that the Government will at least try to do this, because when I tell my fishermen that the Government say that they are doing this or that, my fishermen say "We see no sign whatever that this Government are taking any initiative, whether it be on the common fisheries policy, the Law of the Sea Conference or anything else."
I understand why the Icelanders are taking their present action. They have the guts to stand up for their rights and to protect their future. At the same time, we know that at present there are approximately 40 Icelandic boats fishing for herring off Shetland. Naturally, fishermen ask why the Government are not doing something to protect them when the Icelandic Government are protecting their fishermen. Our Government cannot just leave these problems, sit back and express the sort of pious platitudes that we have had from them up to now.
We have a system of quotas, and I was glad to see the renegotiation of the herring quota which took place at the NEAFC conference a few weeks ago. It is right here to pay tribute to our negotiators at that conference, especially those from the Scottish Office, who are undoubtedly the best negotiators in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Henderson: No, I shall not. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has any knowledge of fishing matters.
It is extremely important that the catch quotas which are agreed internationally should be observed, and there is considerable doubt about whether they are being observed. There is all sorts of evidence on mesh sizes, for example. In the communication which we all received from the British Trawlers' Federation, there is a quotation from Nordlys, a Norwegian newspaper, which says that when the Norwegian fishery protection service boarded the Soviet trawler "Gurieb" the inspecting officer found extra nets with mesh width of 53 mm, the regulation


mesh being 120 to 130 mm. Moreover Belgium, which according to international catch quota agreements is allowed in 1975 to fish 500 tons in the Barents Sea, now has 10 trawlers there, and with such a fleet its quota must have been taken by now.
There is utter cynicism in our fishing industry at the lack of international policing of mesh sizes and quotas. Although most of our catch can be monitored because most of it is for human consumption, in these other cases, where the catch is primarily for fish meal, it seems impossible to ensure that international agreements are honoured and are properly policed.
There have been references to restructuring. Restructuring can come only when we know what our limits will be and when we know what stocks of fish will be available to us for the future. This is the crucial issue. When I talked to my fishermen last weekend, their message was "As an industry, we do not want subsidies. What we want from the Government is a clear policy. We want an assurance that our limits will be increased and that the stocks will be available".
When a fisherman asks me "Do you think that I should put my laddie to sea, as I have gone before?", I am in doubt as to how to answer him because I see no sign from this Government which can give any confidence, and I do not believe that we shall hear from the Under-Secretary of State tonight that they have the courage and vision essential for the future of the industry.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: First, I apologise to the Minister for not being present at the start of the debate. I was addressing an audience elsewhere in the expectation that the debate would begin at 10 o'clock, not when it did.
I wish to make just three points, and they all touch matters vital to the future of the whole industry. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) and all others whom I have heard stressed the crisis now facing the industry and emphasised its unsettled the future. Hon. Members have rightly said that the Government have done nothing to chart the industry's future.
The Minister may recall that I suggested some time ago that it was about time we had another Fleck Committee. Fourteen years ago there was a Fleck Committee to consider the future of the industry over the next 10 years. I think that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took the view earlier that it would not be much good having a Royal Commission or another Fleck Committee as there were too many imponderables facing him. In my view, because of the seriousness of the present situation, the Government ought to look again to the future and so give the industry some confidence.
The operational subsidies are to end at the end of this year. Surely, the present is the worst possible time to end subsidies. Unfortunately, the dispute with Iceland has followed its almost preordained course. I understand the views of both sides. The Icelanders do not want to risk the future of their cod stocks. For our part, we wish to fish wherever we are allowed to do so under international law, and if we are impeded in so doing we naturally turn to the Royal Navy for protection.
It seems surprising that the negotiators failed to agree on what amounted to 35,000 tons of cod—the difference between the two negotiating positions. Having had some experience, I know how difficult it is to negotiate with the Icelanders, who are most friendly people and yet the most obstinate in the world. At least there is good will on both sides, and I cite the instance of the "Miranda" which was assisted by the Icelandic coastguard only yesterday to show that, although we may be quarrelling over the amount of cod that we may catch, we are still friends and allies.
I do not believe that the dispute with Iceland will be settled until the Law of the Sea Conference has completed its work, one hopes in April or May next year. It is not true to say that by sending in the Royal Navy to protect our trawlers we have used either the big stick or our last shot. Now that the Icelanders have reached agreement with West Germany, they only have to reach agreement with us to get access to the Common Market. That must be immensely important to their economy, and that is a point that we must press home in order to obtain a renewal of negotiations.
As I say, I do not believe that much will happen until the Law of the Sea Conference has completed its work. If it does not complete its work by next summer, many large nations like Canada and America will take unilateral action, and no doubt we shall have to do the same. Countries will establish 200-mile limits, whether the United Nations agrees or not. I hope that this knowledge will force Iceland to come to an agreement early in 1976.
My third point and perhaps the most important of all is that the Government have made clear that, once they are allowed to do so by international law, they will extend their limits to 200 miles. They must make preparations for this now. We cannot extend our limits in July 1976 and then find that we have not the adequate fishery protection vessels to police those limits. To protect 200 miles is very different from protecting 12 miles. Protection in Scottish waters at the moment, with the present limits, is not all that good. This is no fault of the Royal Navy, but there are too few vessels and we are not using helicopters and aeroplanes as we ought.

Mr. Hamish Watt: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we get our limits extended, every British fisherman will be a policeman and will immediately notify the authorities if any foreigners are fishing in the area?

Mr. Wall: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but notifying the authorities is not much use unless the authorities are able to arrest the vessel which is poaching. They cannot do that because they have not yet got sufficient resources in the shape of helicopters, aeroplanes and patrol vessels at present let alone in the future. Once the limits are extended they have to be protected, otherwise it is no good extending them.
A point which has been raised a number of times in the debate is that of a common fisheries policy. If we push out our limits to 200 miles there are, I am told, about 1½ million tons of fish to be caught within those limits. The British industry wants to know what percentage of this total it will be allowed to catch. It wants to know whether it will have an exclusive right to fish in a pretty large band around our coasts—personally I would say 100

miles exclusive and 200 miles with the normal facilities.
This kind of negotiation will be difficult. Our partners in the EEC have fished out their own waters and will be gathering—I was going to say "like vultures", but that is not the correct metaphor—

Mr. McNamara: Like gannets.

Mr. Wall: —yes, like gannets, to take all the fish they can from within our limits. They must be exclusive and they must be patrolled. We have got until 1982, and that is not very long hence.
I raised this point the last time we had a debate on this subject, and the Minister assured me that negotiations were under way. I know that the Minister is doing his best, but it is not known in the industry that the British Government are doing much about preparing to extend the limits to 200 miles or doing much about these important negotiations. If the Minister is doing all this important work, why is he so secretive? The more he can tell the industry, the more confidence he will receive from the industry, and that is what we need more than anything else.
When we go out to 200 miles, we shall be able to reach an agreement with Iceland to swap sectors of our 200-miles limit where there are herring for sectors of Iceland's limit where cod are available. The dispute should then end with a happy compromise. The new limit will, however, mean that the deep-water trawlers from Hull and Grimsby will be fishing much closer inshore, and there is bound to be trouble from inshore fishermen. I hope that this will be sorted out before it starts and that the rules are clearly defined.
We must start catching new species of fish. I commend the White Fish Authority for the work it has done on the blue whiting. The success of this venture depends on British housewives eating the fish. An article in the latest edition of the Economist says that
The potential annual catch of blue whiting is one million tons, more than Britain's total current haul of all species.
If we can make this fish acceptable to the housewives, many of the fishing industry's problems will be solved.
The Government's standing with the fishing industry is very low despite the efforts of Ministers. People in the industry cannot see that anything is being done. They want an assurance that preparations are being made now for the extension of our limits to 200 miles and that adequate negotiations are taking place with our partners in the EEC to ensure that we have a belt round this country which is reserved exclusively for our own fishermen.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Gray: I represent a constituency which does not have a particularly large fishing interest, though there are a number of mid-water trawlers and a considerable number of inshore fishermen. At a time when the industry is in such a perilous financial state, it is absurd for the Government to propose the phasing out on 31st December of that assistance which has been of such value over the years.
I join in the pleas of those hon. Members representing constituencies with deep-water fleets, but I want to remind the skippers of those boats of the danger they cause to inshore fishermen by indiscriminate trawling very close to the shore.
I recently received a letter from a fisherman in my constituency. I have forwarded it to the Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office. The fisherman told me that £800 worth of damage was caused in one night by three trawlers which came in, completely disregarding his prawn creels and tackle. They trawled straight through and destroyed the lot. I advised him, as I have advised other constituents in a similar position, to contact the local procurator fiscal, who sent the protest to the Scottish Office. My constituent received a totally inadequate reply from the Scottish Office, despite the fact that he had supplied the names, and even, I understand, the numbers of the trawlers involved. I have also raised this question with the Under-Secretary and I trust that severe action will be taken and the interests of inshore fishermen will be preserved and upheld.
The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has already mentioned that the protection of inshore fishermen and

deep-water fleets appears to be inadequate. I hope the Government will consider the implications of inadequately protected trawlers fishing in distant waters where they are obviously not welcome. As for inshore fishermen, the protection fleet has been reduced from nine to six, instead of being increased. It is high time that more realistic methods were adopted to protect those inshore fleets.
The situation, particularly on the west coast of Scotland, is that when the fisheries cruiser comes out of Stornoway every rogue trawler within a radius of about 50 miles knows that it has come out. The news is signalled from point to point, and all the illegal trawling ceases immediately. In this day and age the system of protection is not good enough, and the time has come for a more realistic method to be adopted.
I am grateful that I have had the opportunity to intervene in this debate. I particularly wanted to raise the plight of the inshore fishermen, who are so often forgotten, and I hope that the Minister will pay attention to what has been said.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: We have had what I would describe as a short, sharp debate. The Minister of State rightly prides himself on the fact that he has visited a number of fishing ports around the country, and having visited a number of ports after the Minister has been to them I know that he has been there and that he is said to have listened to what the fishermen have had to say to him. However, after listening to the Minister tonight it seems to me that although he has listened to the fishermen he has learnt little or nothing, and one has to ask whether he has treated those visits as a public relations exercise and not in the way that they were publicised—as fact-finding missions.
The Minister's speech tonight was in sharp contrast to the speeches of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who represent fishing ports. One would not have thought, from hearing his speech tonight, that the Minister had been to talk to the kind of people represented by my hon. Friends the Members for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), Aberdeen, South


(Mr. Sproat) and Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray). One has to ask whether the Minister has any understanding of the uncertainty and despair arising from the financial losses that the industry is sustaining. It seems that the Minister's visits, trotting from port to port with an army of civil servants before and behind him, are a bit of a waste of time if this is the sort of thing that emerges from them.
I think that the Minister might wish to forget what has happened, and I dare say he is wishing that he could rewrite his speech and make it again. In future, let him keep in better touch with the problems of the industry; in future debates on this subject, let him make speeches that reflect not what he would like to hear from fishermen but what he does hear from them. If he does not believe what I am saying, I can only say that the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) backs me up entirely.
The Minister had a bit of a cheek to accuse his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central of non-attendance at fishing industry debates, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity of putting the record straight, because a number of us on the Conservative Benches take the view that the hon. Gentleman is one of the Members on the Government side who take a continuing and permanent interest in this industry.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will not accuse my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) of exaggeration. No sooner had my hon. Friend resumed his seat than virtually the same was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central. There was no exaggeration in those two speeches. We had fine speeches from both hon. Members. I differ with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central only when he criticises my party, when in Government, of cutting the subsidy in 1970. I remind him that in 1970 we had a highly prosperous fishing industry. I can remember going, in that year, with my right hon. Friend the then Minister, to the Humber ports, where we saw for ourselves just how prosperous tie industry was at that time, and how little criticism there was over cutting the subsidies. But I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about there being no

future planning in the industry. This really causes exasperation. That is a point which has come out in speech after speech.
We have to ask ourselves what the Government are doing if the Law of the Sea Conference, when it reconvenes in New York early next year, produces no fishing agreement, which we hope will come out before an overall agreement on some of the other more contentious matters. If, next year, the Law of the Sea Conference fails to provide a fishing agreement, what plans have the Government to deal with the likely extension by other nations to a 200-mile exclusive economic zone?
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said that there was a real likelihood that, in the event of a failure to get a fishing agreement, countries like the United States, Canada, Denmark—which is already making preparations through Greenland—and Norway would create 200-mile zones. I have been talking today to representatives of the British Trawlers' Federation. They were extremely worried about this situation. They have authorised me to say that they see no evidence of the Government's preparations to deal with a move by other nations to 200-mile exclusive economic zones, so we must ask the Government to tell the House what their policy is to meet this real likelihood What will they do if this should happen? Will they take up my hon. Friend's suggestion that in the event of this happening they will call a regional conference of countries in this part of the North Atlantic to try to work out a zoning arrangement which is satisfactory to us all?
Again, there appears to be no future planning over the reorganisation of the common fisheries policy. Again, the British Trawlers' Federation's representatives tell me that they see no evidence of any headway in the renegotiation of that policy. So we have to ask what is happening. What moves are being made? As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South said a few minutes ago, as our fleet declines so does our bargaining position decline, as we renegotiate the common fisheries policy.
The whole background to the policy of this Government is one of uncertainty—an uncertainty that is matched


only by the uncertainty that we find in the industry. Over recent months we have done our best, by trying to extract from the Government a statement of their policy. In recent years there have never been so many debates, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, on fisheries matters.
We have a situation in our ports in which even some of our newest trawlers are tied up. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central spoke of modern freezer boats which had been tied up in recent weeks. This is not something which has been going on since earlier in the year. It has happened very recently. Boats are being driven back into our waters. We face a somewhat bizarre situation. I believe that the largest trawler in the whole of the British fleet has been driven back to catching mackerel within the seas around the Isle of Man and off the south-west coast of England. It is bound to cause immense tensions with the inshore fishermen when, for instance, off the south-west coast they have seen the "Arctic Galliard" trawling mackerel out of the sea and steaming up and down faster than most of the inshore boats can go when they are not fishing.
This increased uncertainty that surrounds the dispute with Iceland makes it all the more essential that the industry should know what the Government have in mind. The subsidy that we are debating has been vital for the period between the running out of our agreement with Iceland and the moment when the Navy moved in. At that time fishing was very difficult. Now that the Navy has moved in we are in a somewhat better position. The British Trawlers' Federation has told me that, with the Navy, things are going quite well, and that there is now firm evidence that we shall be able to fish commercially under protection in the same way as we did during our last dispute with Iceland. It tells me that the likelihood is that we shall catch far more fish than we could settle for in the negotiations. It is clear that to the fishermen who are operating in the waters which surround Iceland, and which Iceland has claimed as her own, subsidy is vital.
We must have an assurance from the Government that the subsidy will be re-introduced in the New Year if it should

become necessary, as it was apparently necessary in the months that have passed. The scheme will help out until the end of the year, but we cannot go on for much longer with non-policies and the hand-to-mouth remedial measures that the Government introduce week by week. We are tired of having these fruitless debates, dealing with the major problems facing the industry, and receiving no answers. We must shortly have a definitive major statement from the Minister. If the Government plan a rundown of the industry, let them tell us. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that we might have a White Paper. I agree with him that we must have a comprehensive account of where we are going. If the Government are not prepared to give us a White Paper or a definitive statement of their policy, we may have to fall back on the rather longer procedure of a Fleck Committee Report, or a new version of it.
I hope that the Government will take to heart the fact that the House is becoming increasingly bored and impatient with the drift from which the industry is suffering. I hope that they will regard the debate as a sharp warning, and that before long we shall have a much better idea that the future of the industry has been properly thought out, and will be properly implemented.

10.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I am conscious that references have been made to platitudes. It is said that the Government offer nothing but platitudes. It seems that this matter is now becoming boring, but there is a general lack of precision about the suggestions that are made as to what the Government should do about the fishing industry. I have been equally impressed by the same lack of constructive and specific suggestions from Opposition Members. It is easy for them to say that the Government should be showing more initiative, that they should be handing out more in subsidy, but at the same time they profess to support the idea that the industry does not want subsidies. Platitudes can work both ways.
It is easy to be critical when one has no responsibility and does not even exercise responsibility in the presentation of


a case. I refer to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson). The case that he presented was cheap.
On previous occasions some of my hon. Friends have claimed that I have omitted to pay attention to what they have said, but on this occasion I have nothing to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) for saying. He was critical of the Government, and I thought that he was a little unfair. I shall deal specifically with some of the matters that he raised. I shall also take up the constructive comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) regarding a White Paper. I know that he raised the matter only a couple of weeks ago, when he was given an assurance that it would be considered sympathetically. I shall explain some of the difficulties in even contemplating a White Paper when we are going into a negotiating position not just with Iceland but with EEC and non-EEC countries on the question of the areas in which we fish.
It is extremely difficult and somewhat unrealistic for the industry to expect the Government to demonstrate in detail and with precision their aims and objectives. I assure Opposition Members that when they contemplate these profound remarks they will realise that they are being a little unfair in wanting a definitive and precise statement on limits.
It is suggested that we should state what we would regard as being a reasonable exclusive area for United Kingdom fishing vessels. Opposition Members know, none better than the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who was involved in the original negotiations, that they are being less than fair. I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the industry's difficulties, but I think that he is exaggerating the ease with which his party would be able to solve these problems if it were in government.
I shall deal as quickly as I can with some of the questions that have been raised. I shall then give the background to some of the problems and an outline of what we are trying to do.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns referred to the losses in the various sectors. This is a matter that should be put in to perspective. We

reckon that the average subsidy—these are average figures, and can vary between the different sizes of boat and within the same sizes of boats—works out at approximately 3 per cent. of earnings for the 60 ft. to 80 ft. vessels. I do not think that anyone would suggest that either taking that away or doubling it would make all the difference between having an industry—

Mr. Watt: Mr. Watt rose—

Mr. Brown: Let me finish. The hon. Gentleman should not jump to conclusions. No one would suggest that a subsidy of that size is the crucial factor in determining whether or not there will be an industry.

Mr. Watt: Mr. Watt rose—

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is rising on a valid point that I thought I was making. Let me add to it. If the argument is put forward that the continuation of this subsidy is vital to the industry, it is a slight exaggeration. Obviously, no matter what the subsidy is—even though it may be only 3 per cent. of the earnings—it may be vital to the owners of some vessels, because it may be the difference between a profit or a loss. I am not an economist, but I would have thought that that was fairly obvious. [Interruption.] Are hon. Members now telling me that there is some fantastic figure between a profit or a loss? It can be as little as £1. Conservative Members should not be so supercilious about this. I know enough about business to know the difference between a profit and a loss.
Conservative Members should make up their minds. Is this subsidy significant, or is it not? I suggest that it is an important contribution, but that its importance should not be exaggerated by critics. I argue that, in limited circumstances only, it has made the difference between a profit and a loss for a few boats. It is not the solution to the fundamental problems facing the industry. Some hon. Members have suggested that if this subsidy is not continued there will be no fishing industry. I take the point made by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns when he asked about the earnings and losses in various sections of the industry. Of course, the subsidy has made a significant contribution, but it


is not a matter of life or death to the industry's future, as he made it out to be.
I was asked whether the £6¼ million was paid out for the first six months. The answer is "No." Claims amounted to about £5 million.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why we were told by the Minister in his opening speech that it was £6¼ million.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member was not told that £6¼ million was paid out. He was told that £6¼ million was available.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Misleading the industry.

Mr. Brown: Come off it.

Mr. Donald Stewart: That was the impression given.

Mr. Brown: When any amount of money that is available is based on conditions concerning the number of days at sea before a vessel qualifies, and similar factors, there must be an element of guessing. Hon. Members can read Hansard tomorrow. I assure the House that the Minister was not misleading it. He was merely saying that the money set aside totalled £6¼ million in the first year. That was only a factual point. I thought I was being asked what had been claimed as expenditure. [Interruption.] I cannot hear all these interesting comments. I am sure that they are clever and relevant, but as I cannot hear them I do not know whether they are good points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central, who is not present at the moment, was a little unfair in saying that we have no policy on limits. The Government have made their policy clear on numerous occasions. I am speaking here in the context of the EEC. We have said bluntly that we are the largest coastal State.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Notwithstanding the difficult point that my hon. Friend has reached, will he tell us what is the policy on fishing limits? I am interested.

Mr. Brown: We have said in the EEC that we expect the fact that we have the biggest coastal fisheries to be recognised

in future discussions. That is as far as any Government can go in saying how they approach the problem. That does not mean that we do not recognise that, as we are in the EEC, in negotiations we have to bear in mind all the other considerations involved—not just fishing, but all the other industries which have perhaps attracted greater attention in the past, such as agriculture, or greater attention now, such as energy. Within that context, we have made our starting position clear.

Mr. Watt: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the fishing industry of Great Britain is negotiable, and can be negotiated away to allow preference, for example, to the wine industry?

Mr. Brown: No, I did not say that. I give the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) credit for not being stupid, but if he is not stupid he is deliberately misleading the House. I did not say that the livelihood of the people employed in our fishing industry was negotiable, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that, just as cod is of vital importance to Iceland, so is wine of vital importance to certain parts of France and Italy. But perhaps Members of the SNP are not interested in the problems of working people in other countries. When we enter into negotiations we have a prime responsibility for looking after our people, but in negotiations we do not always get exactly what we want. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's farm workers do not get everything they ask for.

Mr. Henderson: What do you want?

Mr. Brown: I am telling the hon. Member. I repeat, for the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central, who is now present, that we have made this declaration of intent and we shall stick to it.

Mr. Clegg: Do I understand that no negotiations with the EEC are in progress, but that the Minister is telling us what will be the Government's attitude when they start?

Mr. Brown: I do not know what I have done to attract all this criticism. I thought that hon. Members opposite were well informed of the position. Perhaps they think I am a bit soft, and are taking advantage of me. It is surely


well known that it was my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and Food who, at the Council of Ministers meeting in April, raised the question of the review of the common fisheries policy. The procedure then was for officials of the Commission to report on the policy. That is the stage we are at. It was set in train as a result of our initiative, but it takes time to go through the machinery, prepare proposals, and report back to the Council of Ministers. We are pursuing the matter at both ministerial and official level.

Mr. Dalyell: I have a certain interest in this matter in relation to the European Parliament, where these matters are discussed. Will my hon. Friend answer a question put by Austin Laing, of the British Trawlers' Federation? Before any agreement is reached on an expansion of the limits to 200 miles, are there likely to be negotiations with Belgium and France and other countries involved about what should be done before agreeing to the outer limits?

Mr. Brown: Those countries are our partners in the EEC. I do not understand what my hon. Friend is trying to convey. Inevitably there will be discussions at official level with other member States before such changes in the common fisheries policy are negotiated.
Perhaps, in reply to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), I may be allowed a little nationalistic fervour. Surely the conduct particularly of Scottish fishermen who have been fishing off Cornwall for mackerel has been most exemplary, in terms of their willingness to discuss with the local community the best way of using the available fishing grounds there. In other words, the Scottish fishermen have been most concerned that apparently the only way in which they could make a living out of it was by going so much for fish meal. They have taken steps to try to increase the outlets for home consumption of mackerel. I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there was a degree of co-operation and understanding, helped by officials, which promises well for the future. I understand, regardless of the opinion of some of the local fishing community, that there will be no pirating. I think that there is hope from the experience of this year.
Hon. Members have raised questions about the general state of the industry and whether earnings have been going up, and so on. This is a difficult matter. In some sections, earnings have gone up; indeed, in some cases they are 12 per cent. higher than last year. Nevertheless, I would be guilty of exaggeration if I suggested that that experience was anything like common, because in herring fishing earnings have been drastically reduced. I shall not minimise the general seriousness of the situation in the industry.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East spoke about mesh infringements and the general question of inspection and enforcement. Again, I may be lacking in diplomacy, but I do not think it gets us anywhere if it is assumed that no United Kingdom fishermen break the rules, because that is just not true. The corollary of such an assumption would be that one could not trust any foreigner. Perhaps this fits into the nice nationalistic chauvinistic pattern of the SNP, but in international discussions, whether it be with Norway or any other country, it does not seem to be a helpful approach to start on the basis that the other guy is a twister.

Mr. Henderson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that our fishermen are not to be trusted but that the fishermen of other countries are to be trusted? If not, will he say in detail what policing methods are available and are used?

Mr. Brown: I notice that the hon. Gentleman, with his usual lack of courage, has dodged the question I have put to him. He is not saying that he admits that there has been law-breaking by Scottish or English fishermen—[Interruption.] I am exposing, I hope, the complete lack of honesty by Members of the SNP. I was saying that at a time when an industry is beset by so many problems it was not helpful to leave the impression that if we could do something about the foreigners all the problems would be solved. That is precisely the approach that I meet in SNP circles when we debate, I hope rationally, the problems of the fishing industry.
That approach is not helpful, because I firmly believe that fishermen are almost a unique group in the community. They have tremendous skills, and they have to


face tremendous hardships. In any emergency they are willing to help each other. I want us to encourage fishermen to talk to fishermen and to discuss their common problems. Undue chauvinism from the SNP or from any other narrow nationalist party in any other part of the world is not helpful. This is part of the difficulty in agreeing a common fisheries policy.
I have had responsibility for these matters for 18 months, and I shall not accept all the blame and responsibility for the state of the fishing industry, but it is fair comment to say that it has been hit with almost everything one can imagine. The United States market has been an extremely important factor in the fortunes of the industry, on both the processing side and the catching side. There has been tremendous change in the past couple of years. Sad to say, the Japanese had something to do with it—

Mr. Henderson: Who is being chauvinistic now?

Mr. Brown: I am suggesting to the hon. Gentleman that he cannot solve the problems of the fishing industry in Fraserburgh unless he is prepared to adopt a more international outlook than he is apparently willing to do. We cannot deliberately ignore the world economic factors which have an influence on the prospects, performance and opportunities of the fishing fleet.
There is a world recession, which is plainly a factor that must be taken into account. There has been the pressure on this country of imports from countries affected by the decline in the American market. There was a 50 per cent. increase in the cost of oil in 1974. The fishing industry has been extremely badly hit by oil prices, because oil is a major element in its costs. It was one of the reasons for the subsidies. Of course, the industry is also hit by general inflation.
I turn to the question of safety provisions—the little extras that have been pushed into a difficult situation. People complain because they are frustrated—they do not know whether there is a good future for the industry. It is a pity that there is not greater recognition of the fact that these safety regulations

have been discussed with the industry for years and should have been implemented in the years of plenty. Hon. Members can protest and say that it is not the right time, but often that has been the argument of those who were never greatly concerned about safety regulations in any industry. These are the small, unfortunate things—they are more than pinpricks—that have been flung in to this difficult situation, and I admit that they have added to the worries and concerns of those in the industry.
Probably the greatest difficulty of all has been the introduction of a quota system. Why are there quotas? Who is arguing that there should not be quotas? Not one hon. Member has suggested that we should not have conservation policies. We cannot have conservation policies without quotas and without entering into a new situation in which we have to reach agreement with others who at present have a legal and legitimate right to fish the seas. This kind of new situation is not easy for fishermen, for those who obtain their livelihood from the sea, or for the Government, to face.
I do not claim that this Scheme is any more than a modest contribution. Nevertheless, it is a worthwhile contribution to help the fishing industry. I can appreciate the pressures. It is more than a public relations exercise to go round ports. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has a great capacity for saying cheap things. If we do not go round a port, that is wrong and if we do, we are trooping round with civil servants in front of and behind us. Did you do it any differently? Do not be so cheap or childish. I believe that it is well worth while for Ministers to talk to those who have the problems. Probably I have done more of that than any previous Under-Secretary. It is a recognition that there are problems in the industry. Do not be so trivial about it. At least you should give us credit for being concerned about it.

Mr. Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to accuse you of being cheap and trivial?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Morton): The Chair is aware that there


have been occasional lapsi linguae but I understand what the Minister says.

Mr. Brown: Obviously most of the references should have been made directly to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East.
I hope that in the difficult circumstances that I have outlined at least the Government will be acquitted of the charge of not being concerned about the industry. We are extremely concerned about it. This is a modest contribution, to help the industry get over difficult circumstances. I make it quite clear that the major element in the fishing industry's salvation, in the short term, is an improvement in prices. We shall do everything we can to help that. I am not prepared to dodge any unpopularity that that may result on the part of housewives or consumers. It is something that has to be faced. We shall not shirk our responsibilities. I hope that in future we shall get a little more credit and a little more support and understanding from Opposition Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) (No. 3) Scheme 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

HANDICAPPED PERSONS, WALES (FURTHER EDUCATION)

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: It is my privilege this evening to raise the subject of the provision of further education for handicapped persons in Wales.
I have been interested in special education for a number of years, and I have been impressed with the good work that has been carried on in special schools, but I appreciate that provision cannot be made in every part of the country. While discussing the subject of school leavers with teachers in a special school, it occurred to me that we should

take a look at post-school provision for handicapped youngsters. On investigating the provision I found that nine colleges in England provide for handicapped young people. Some of these are devoted entirely to providing for the handicapped. Others contain a department devoted to these young people.
Such a college is the one in North Nottinghamshire, at Worksop. I must admit that I have never visited this college, but from what I have read and heard about, it is a model that appeals to me. It is attractive, because handicapped youngsters are integrated with other students whilst they still have special provision and care within a department in which certain members of the staff have responsibilities to them. Some residential accommodation is also available.
Having considered the situation in England, I looked at the position in Wales. What did I find? There is not a college in Wales which has special provision for this category. I would not wish to be misunderstood. I should be very surprised if any college which had a handicapped student on roll did not do its utmost to help that student. But that would be a different matter from catering for a group of students; it would be catering only on an individual basis.
We have very good provision for further education in Wales, but provision specifically for the handicapped is limited. I envisage selected colleges in Wales being chosen for adaptation so that a number of handicapped students can be accommodated. These should be in certain selected centres—say, four or five places—in Wales, so that they can draw on a number of day students, but a number of students would also have to board on a weekly basis.
I have chosen this idea rather than having one central college, so that a central college would have a number of students who would have to be boarded for the whole term. I think that there is merit in a weekly boarding system which allows students to return home for the weekend. I would locate them, therefore, in situations where no more than this would be required.
These colleges would enable students to pursue academic courses, and they could receive craft training to prepare


them for jobs. Some may not have had such opportunities at school. There are many rural areas in which no special provision can be made for school education. Others may have been slow in learning at school—for very obvious reasons. Further education can make up for these difficulties.
We have such a scheme in prospect at Bridgend, in Mid-Glamorgan. Mid-Glamorgan County has submitted a scheme to have 20 residential places for handicapped students, apart from places for day students, and for 20 residential places for other students. This is to be attached to the local college of further education.
We are now looking for money for this scheme to be implemented. This could be a forerunner for other schemes throughout Wales—in fact, a pilot scheme. South Glamorgan, on the other hand, is interested in creating a centre for more advanced studies, and this could serve the whole of Wales and beyond. It has a number of colleges of further education, providing a variety of courses, and it feels that it can incorporate provision in these colleges. I hope that when it fully formulates these ideas, they will be given a fair wind.
In discussing these ideas with officials in South Glamorgan, we came to the conclusion that it would be most useful if those Government Departments with an interest in these matters could meet from time to time at officer level—I am thinking now of the DHSS, the Department of Employment, the Welsh Office and the Department of Education and Science—to discuss the needs of these young people. There could be continuing discussions, and at various times progress reports might be made to Ministers.
I should like to quote one sentence from the Queen's Speech, which says that
Within available resources, they "—
that is the Government—
will give priority to children with special needs and to the vocational preparation of young people aged 16 to 19.
If we combine the two parts of that sentence, the result is provision for 16-to-19-year-olds with special needs. I hope that that is what is intended—that we shall not keep those two categories apart but will combine them and give priority

to the category of 16-to-19-year-olds who are handicapped. I stress the importance of providing for this category.
If we believe that any young people in our society have to be taught independence, surely it must be those who are handicapped, whether they be mentally or physically handicapped. It is pathetic to see these people, having received very expensive treatment at school, being allowed to become—I must use this term—"cabbages", when no further use is accorded to them. I believe that it is incumbent upon us to do everything possible to train them to be self-sufficient both at work and at home. I believe that further education is the way in which this process can take place.
I have been told that the more intelligent can look after themselves. Certainly they are able to get by very often, but I do not believe that they can look after themselves. They have physical needs that must be catered for. At present, the colleges will not cater for these needs. Therefore, I hope that we shall press on to ensure that these young people will be given provision within existing colleges—because we do not need to build new places. We must adapt existing colleges and have available staff with special responsibilities, but these people must be integrated with other students so that they can associate with life outside. This is vitally important, because eventually they will have to live and work in the world outside.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for turning out at this late hour to respond to this debate, and I beg of her to look closely at this problem, because at present the only provision which these young people have in Wales is that of attending other colleges in England, and that is a pity, because they are away for such long periods. Indeed, the parents of young people such as these are extremely attached to them, and feel the loss tremendously when they have to go to other parts of the country.

11.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I know of the interest that he has shown in this matter over a long period. I have a great deal of sympathy with the views that he has


expressed and with the problems that he has highlighted. He may be interested to know that recently I visited the Hereward College and spoke to many of the students, who are, of course, all physically handicapped.
It is clearly right, as my hon. Friend said, that students suffering from handicap and disability should have the fullest possible access to opportunities for further education, and these are by no means as extensive as we would wish them to be. It is also true that the problem is not just an educational one. Ideally, one would like to see a range of closely linked services for the disabled—educational, caring, housing, employment and health services—in which handicapped school leavers could be given the best possible opportunities for development.
As my hon. Friend is aware, we have on the statute book the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which, among other things, requires that those undertaking the provision of buildings intended for educational purposes shall—I here quote from the Act—
in the means of access both to and within the building, and in the parking facilities and sanitary conveniences to be available (if any), make provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable, for the needs of persons using the building who are disabled".
That Act was followed by the issue in 1970 of a joint DES-Welsh Office circular giving advice to local education authorities not only in connection with their statutory responsibilities under Section 8 of the Act but also in terms of the action which could be taken to provide easier access and better facilities for the handicapped in existing buildings. Since then, it has been the practice of the professional staff of the Welsh Education Office in Cardiff to check whether plans for new educational buildings show specific provision for disabled students and, where necessary, to remind authorities of their responsibilities under the Act.
A great deal can often be done, at relatively modest cost, to adapt existing buildings to the special needs of handicapped students. The bids made by local education authorities for the next programme of minor works suggest that this is well appreciated in Wales. In any case, it would be wrong to imply that

the further education system in Wales is at present completely closed to the handicapped.
My hon. Friend is well aware, for example, of the industrial workshop centre with the Bridgend Technical College, which has been running since September and which provides remedial teaching as well as industrial training for pupils leaving ESN(M) schools and remedial departments of secondary schools. A similar project, but linked with the Industrial Rehabilitation Unit at Port Talbot, has been running for several years.
There are a number of courses, based on further education colleges, to help handicapped school leavers bridge the gap from school to work. The Cross Keys Technical College has recently started an experimental course for ESN(M) and ESN(S). In informal further education there are already established a number of youth clubs providing specifically for the handicapped.
I do not deny that this represents no more than a modest beginning, and my hon. Friend is right when he speaks of the need to ensure that the handicapped are not isolated from other areas of further education and general activity. We need to assess the needs more fully and to measure them against the facilities already available.
It is that need to get to grips with the size of the problem which led my right hon. Friend, in conjunction with the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland, to set up the Warnock Committee of Inquiry to inquire into the educational provision for physically handicapped children and young people in England, Wales and Scotland. That Committee is hard at work on its brief, which includes transfer from school to work and, therefore, further education.
Evidence to the Warnock Committee will be supplemented or updated by the results of a national survey, which Her Majesty's inspectors, in Wales as in England, are conducting, of current provision for the handicapped in further education. The survey covers further education colleges, youth clubs and organisations and adult education, and will seek to bring together the views and experience of local education authorities,


responsible bodies and the college principals, officers and others who are working in this field.
The need for an across-the-board approach to this problem has been recognised in Wales, as my hon. Friend is aware. During the last two or three years, there have been continuing interdepartmental discussions between the Welsh Education Office, the Welsh Inspectorate, the Social Work and Medical Services Divisions of the Welsh Office, and the Department of Employment. The WJEC co-operated by conducting a survey of Welsh local education authorities in 1973 to assess the number and needs of disabled school leavers. On the basis of this joint study a pilot scheme was devised for making special provision in a selected area. Progress was frustrated by the moratorium on educational building in October 1973, but the resumption of building programmes in 1974–75 made it possible to re-open discussions of the scheme. By that time, the Bridgend Technical College had been chosen as the location for the experiment and the Mid-Glamorgan authority has since prepared the scheme in detail and has submitted it for approval in the 1976–77 further education building programme. The project involves the provision of a lift for the existing three-storey teaching block at the college, a room of between 650 sq. ft. and 700 sq. ft. as a home base for the students, special toilet provision, ramps, and an extension of the dining area. It also includes the provision of a hostel on the college site with accommodation for 30 students, 15 of whom would be disabled, the other students being students pursuing full-time courses at the college who currently have to find accommodation in the Bridgend area. It is thought very desirable that disabled

students should have this opportunity of mixing with other students and of thus becoming more integrated into the life of the college. I share my hon. Friend's views on this matter.
The indications are that authorities in Wales are giving thought to these problems and are very concerned about them. The newly-established institute of higher education in Clwyd is studying what special provision it might be able to make for disabled students. According to Press reports, the South Glamorgan authority is considering the feasibility of providing a student hostel and adapting its further education colleges to the needs of the physically handicapped. At present, all authorities are bound to be concerned about the pressure on their resources, and no doubt none of them feels able to do as much as it would like in this field. My hon. Friend can be assured, however, that the important interests which he has so ably defended here today are not in danger of being overlooked.

Mr. Roderick: Earlier in her speech, my hon. Friend mentioned discussions that took place between various Departments. Can she give hon. Members some idea of the way in which the talks progressed? We had no idea that they had taken place, and have had no report on them.

Miss Lestor: I shall certainly do that. From the interest that my hon. Friend has shown in this matter, I know that he will be very glad to have details of the discussions and what it is hoped will come out of them for the future. I shall write to him on that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Twelve o'clock